CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 3, 2001

• 0907

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues, and good morning to the people from the department, Joan, Daniel, Elizabeth, and Mark. It's nice to have you here a little earlier than we thought; perhaps I could thank you for that and thank you, all my colleagues, for having a little bit of patience. I know we're all a little frustrated.

I can tell you that my office has been getting an awful lot of calls. We were supposed to be travelling this week, as you know. A lot of preparation and arrangements had been made and unfortunately we've had to cancel, at some unnecessary expense, I might add. I've been getting a lot of calls, especially from B.C. and Vancouver, from people who in fact were anticipating us. We had 37 or 40 witnesses who wanted to speak to us in B.C. as well as Winnipeg and Toronto.

Unfortunately—and Inky, you're going to have to help us on this—there are people out there and this is not the first time they've been put off. As you know, when we started Bill C-31 we had planned to travel and unfortunately that didn't happen. We set it up this week and people, including you with your busy schedules, have been planning around that basis of when we were going to be travelling. Unfortunately, due to some game-playing among the parties, we just can't seem to travel and Canadians are getting a little upset.

This is a very important bill, ladies and gentlemen, and on that basis 154 witnesses wanted to talk to us. I think we had a very good beginning. The fact that we're doing this now was so we wouldn't waste any time, and be as efficient as we possibly can, even though we've heard already from some witnesses. And, Joan, that's why we take this opportunity to get some clarification, to get the members up to speed. I'm determined when we come back that this committee will travel, and I've asked the clerk to again set the timetable in place for us to travel.

Canadians demand to be heard. They don't want to see this game-playing. If the Alliance doesn't want any committee to travel because of some issues other than immigration, I think, Inky and Lynne, that on behalf of this committee you're going to have to tell your leadership to do something about it, because I'll tell you, I'm determined to travel. The Liberals will travel. The NDP and Conservatives may want to hear Canadians, and even the Bloc. It may very well be that we might have to do it under a different format, without the infrastructure and apparatus that's available to the committee.

• 0910

I'm determined to hear Canadians. I am. So either we get the parliamentary approval to travel, or we're going to travel one way or another. I just don't think this is appropriate.

There are bigger issues for parties to discuss, and that's one thing. But darn it, this committee has been given the authority by the liaison committee and so on, and I think we have to stop this. Because I'm tired of getting phone calls from witnesses from across the country, asking when we are coming.

I want to impress upon everyone here that this is a very important bill. Canadians want to be heard. Yes, we can sit in Ottawa all the time and do that, and that's fine. But Canadians expect us to travel, especially to parts of the country where immigration and refugee determination is very important.

So I would hope that we can all go back to our respective leadership in the parties and say the immigration committee is ready to travel, we've cancelled already and we're incurring unnecessary expenses, and we need to travel the week we get back. I'm going to ask for all of your cooperation with regard to that, if I could.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, CA): Can I make a comment here?

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Inky Mark: Mr. Chair, as you know, the Alliance representatives on this committee have always supported travel. In fact I've had my tickets all ready to go, and my colleagues have as well. But as you know, the workings of the House dictate and determine what happens in all committees, so it's rather unfair to single out these members.

The Chair: No. I find you very cooperative. That's why I'm asking for your good offices to help us.

It's just that no other committee wants to travel, and the only committee that's being stopped from travelling, as I understand it, is our committee. Because we were first to request it.

I'm just asking, Inky, that you perhaps convey that to your party. I don't know if you're getting calls from witnesses in B.C. specifically, but I can tell you...

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have something to say Mr. Chairman.

I am very disappointed that we are unable to go and listen to these people in person. I will allow myself one comment only. We often have the impression that, as parliamentarians, we receive little or no respect, but I think that what's going on here is lack of respect for the witnesses. That's the worst possible thing. It is unfortunate that members of our staff have worked for nothing, but the most serious thing in my opinion is really the lack of respect toward the witnesses already summoned to appear.

The Chair: Thank you, Madeleine.

[English]

Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I'm not really privy to what has transpired, except that I know I was told we were travelling, and I got my tickets and I reorganized my life. Could we have some explanation as to what has happened, and who said what, or who did what? Because it seemed to me that all the correspondence and everything else that was transmitted to us indicated to us that we were travelling.

I'm in a fog as to exactly what happened. From your previous remarks I understand it has something to do with the Alliance. What is really the story here?

The Chair: First of all, Jean, thank you for the question.

It has absolutely nothing to do with this committee. So it's not as if this committee, or even any member of this committee, is stopping us from travelling. There is a bigger issue with regard to the parties, which are trying to negotiate certain rules as they relate to committees in general in the House. These talks are being held at the highest levels of the government, among the House leaders for all the parties, and they have absolutely nothing to do with immigration.

So we're caught up in this turmoil that's going on with regard to setting some parameters about how committees function and how much time is allocated to each party in terms of the questions at committees. It really has nothing to do with our committee, but we're just caught up in the middle of this.

The thing is, and I agree with Madeleine, the only people who are suffering are the Canadian people who want to hear what this committee has to say about immigration and the witnesses who we've asked on two or three occasions to make plans and do all kinds of things. I feel bad for them, as I'm sure you all do.

Having said that, I didn't want to get into a debate. I just wanted to tell you that this is why we're meeting here and that's why I have the department to meet.

Now, Joan, if we can get... And we can do it informally today. I know the last time we were hurried in terms of getting through the briefing books. We went through the immigration part. We rushed through the refugee part. I know that some of the members had to leave because we like to wrap up by 11 o'clock here, and therefore we rushed through some areas.

• 0915

Also, as I understand it, you've just given us an explanation on proposed regulations. We had tabled this but we really never did go through it. Also, you had some responses to date, I believe, based on some of the questions that have been asked by some of our witnesses.

I wonder whether you can spend a few minutes going through the refugee part of the book so we understand that. We rushed through it. Perhaps you can just talk a little bit about that. Then we'll get into some of the substantive questions we've been hearing about already. We would like to have clarification so we better understand where the witnesses are coming from and where the bill sits.

Can I just ask you, with regard to these proposed regulations—if we don't have enough time today, perhaps we'll do that on Thursday morning—to take the time to go through some of these regulations on Thursday morning? Are these now the regulations as they relate to Bill C-11? Because the last package we got were regulations as they related to Bill C-31. As I understand it, these are the discussion papers with regard to Bill C-11.

Ms. Joan Atkinson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Program Development, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Yes. What you have here is, as the minister had said, a work in progress.

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What you've got is the current state of our regulatory proposals for Bill C-11. In fact, our understanding was that we were going to discuss, largely, the regulatory proposals today. We've come prepared with all of the experts, in terms of the regulatory proposals.

We are very happy to go back to the bill itself, go through any of the areas where we had to rush the last time, and spend a little bit of time on those, if you like.

The Chair: Look at it this way: when we have such expertise at the table, it's a shame to not utilize it, because I'm sure that the devil's always in the detail. Hence, that's what we hear when people talk about regulations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right.

The Chair: So I don't mind. Let's deal with the regulations. I'm sure you will probably refer the regulations to a section in the bill.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Absolutely.

The Chair: That may give us an opportunity to do both. So why don't we do that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

The Chair: Why don't we start at the regulations part? I think you all have your books before you. Perhaps we'll do it in sort of different sections, too, if you want. So if there are any questions in between, we'll do it informally without formal times and everything else. Just show your hand if you have a question on a particular aspect of the regulations.

Go ahead, Joan.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

Just a couple of comments, generally, about the regulations. As I said, this is a work in progress. We've done a lot of consultation to date on the regulations. We will continue throughout the course of the processing of the bill, here with the committee, and through Parliament and the other house, to do further consultation and further refinement.

Our commitment is that we will issue updates to the regulatory proposal paper, as we go through, so that the committee is fully informed as to what the current state of play is, in terms of our regulations.

As you know, the regulations are a very important part of this package. We talk about framework legislation. The current act is very much framework legislation in many respects. The regulations, particularly as they relate to part 1 of the bill—which is the immigration part of the bill—are very much the same as in the current act, the selection criteria for skilled workers, the family class regulations, and so on. All of that is found in regulation in the current act. What this document provides you with is some of our detail, in terms of where we're going to change those regulations with the new package.

Let me jump right in. If you turn to page four of this book, you'll notice what we've done here in this document is we've tried to put the draft proposals in the context of how the regulations themselves will be organized to give you a sense of what the regulations will look like.

So of course part 1, as is part 1 in Bill C-11, relates to immigration to Canada. Part 2, of course, deals with refugees. The first division, as per the bill, deals with requirements before entering Canada and selection.

Now, in Bill C-11, as opposed to the current act, we have identified at each section of the bill the regulation-making authority. In the current act, it's in this great big long list towards the end of the bill that we have listed all the regulatory powers. For ease of reference, and because we think it makes more sense and it's better organized, in Bill C-11, at each section that deals with that particular issue, we have the regulation-making authority.

• 0920

So the first key clause is clause 14 of Bill C-11, which authorizes the making of regulations for any matter respecting the requirements before entering Canada. This includes selection criteria, the family class provisions, and sponsorship of foreign nationals.

Getting right into family class, some of the changes we've been talking about in terms of our expansion of the family class you find here. What we plan to do is to change the definition of “dependent child” to raise the age from under 19 to under 22. Now this applies not only to family class and the sponsorship of dependent children under the family class but also to accompanying dependants. So that means family members who accompany immigrants will also be expanded to include the older children. The key here is raising the age to under 22. We include unmarried children under the age of 22, or over 22 if they are full-time students or mentally or physically disabled and dependent on their parents. That is the same as the current definition except the age limit has been raised.

The second piece that we have here is common-law partners. As you know, we have said that the new bill will recognize common-law relationships. That includes both same-sex and opposite-sex common-law relationships. The regulations will define that to include a person who is cohabiting in a conjugal relationship with another person, having so cohabited for at least a year. That is the standard federal government definition of a common-law partner as was outlined in Bill C-23 in the last session, which became law.

However, in recognition of the uniqueness of the immigration situation, we are going to make a somewhat different definition. This is because we know that in the immigration context, people often cannot cohabit, cannot live together, because they are separated because they are nationals of different countries. So with a Canadian, for example, who wishes to be reunited with his or her partner, the whole reason they're going through an immigration process is because their partner is living in another country. In recognition of the fact that it is often difficult for common-law partners to live together, in exceptional circumstances—or for reasons beyond the control of the two partners—as long as the individuals are in a conjugal relationship that has lasted for a year, we will recognize them as common-law partners for the purposes of immigration.

The Chair: Joan, I believe that would answer part of the questions from the EGALE group that was before us that talked a little bit about the problems of being separated from one another as they go through the process. So where our common-law relationship talks about a year or two years of cohabitation or whatever, that obviously wouldn't make any sense. So you're saying there is in fact some discretionary...

Now you say, based on “conjugal”. Is it based on the fact that although they are here, they could have had a cohabitation agreement wherever they were before?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Obviously, living in a conjugal relationship will be a key, regardless of whether the couple are cohabiting or are not cohabiting. It must be a conjugal relationship. For the word “conjugal”, we have a fair amount of jurisprudence—including from the Supreme Court of Canada—that gives us guidance on how to interpret conjugal and how to apply that in terms of trying to define the nature of a relationship.

The Chair: The second part of EGALE's question, if I can remember correctly, was that there might be a different interpretation or understanding of what common-law relationship means in other countries, not necessarily Canada. Even some of our officers may or may not know that common law is in regard to opposite sex or same sex; they wanted something in brackets that would say opposite sex or same sex. Well, I think it's more communication rather than changing the regulations or something like that. Have you found that to be a problem since we changed our laws?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't think we have found that to be a problem.

• 0925

Currently under the Immigration Act and regulations, our officers do deal with common-law relationships, and specifically same-sex common-law relationships, through the discretionary humanitarian and compassionate decision-making process. So our officers are in fact quite familiar with the Canadian context of common-law as it applies to opposite-sex and same-sex relationships.

What we are doing, obviously, in these regulations is codifying and putting into the regulation an explicit recognition of those relationships. Obviously, in terms of both the definition and the guidelines that will follow, I think it will be clear that we are talking about both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships in this context.

The other thing that is noted here is relationships of convenience. We have in the current immigration regulations, as you know, a clause that prohibits the immigration of individuals who have entered into a relationship solely for the purpose of gaining admission to Canada and not for the purpose of residing together in Canada. That relationship-of-convenience clause will be expanded to include reference to common-law relationships.

It's necessary for us to ensure that we have the ability to be able to refuse individuals where they have entered into a common-law relationship for convenience, solely for the purpose of trying to enter Canada, and not with the intention of residing together in a bona fide conjugal relationship. So the relationship of convenience will be expanded to include common-law relationships as well as married relationships.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Maybe because of my lack of knowledge of how you can determine those things, I find many marriages may appear to be marriages of convenience, yet I don't know how you would deal with that in any other way outside of an acceptance. I see that happening very often in my riding.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, determination of whether a relationship is one of convenience involves some fairly thorough analysis of all the circumstances surrounding that relationship on the part of the visa officer, and being aware and applying the knowledge of the local environment and the local custom and traditions as they apply to marriage.

A very good example is India, where marriage involves quite a complex set of cultural traditions, if you will, and rules, if I can put it that way, concerning the relationship between two families and the giving of individuals between those two families.

Officers who are posted in that part of the world undergo cultural sensitivity training on arrival to ensure that they have the understanding of the cultural traditions that are engaged and involved when assessing relationships and marriages, so that they can apply that knowledge when they are attempting to assess whether or not a relationship is one of convenience.

Outside of parts of the world where there are fairly strong cultural traditions that one looks at in terms of assessing relationships of convenience, a decision-maker has to look at the circumstances of the individual case. They look at the length of the relationship; how well do the two individuals know each other; when did they meet; how did they meet; what do they know about each other's families; what do they know about each other's personal situation; what is the history of the individual who is seeking admission; have they attempted to enter Canada before through a relationship that might have been refused. Those are all circumstances and issues that a visa officer has to take into account in trying to assess whether or not they are dealing with a relationship of convenience.

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau, Lib.): If I may just ask one small question, is there follow-up? For instance, if marriages do occur and in a year break down, the person has entered the country, and they're here. Do we follow up on those cases and have any means by which to re-examine?

The Chair: Marriage police?

Mr. Mark Assad: Well, I'm not talking marriage police, Joe, not at all, but I—

An hon. member: We'd all be in trouble.

Mr. Mark Assad: Yes.

The Chair: In other words, a marriage certificate from a Las Vegas Elvis Presley Cathedral might raise some suspicions, or something like that.

• 0930

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's possible. If the history of the relationship was one that was very, very short, for example, you might want to look at that a little bit more closely. But in answer to your question, generally, no. If the individuals were accepted as being in a bona fide relationship at the time the assessment was made, the immigration visa was issued. They were landed. No, we generally do not then, after a year, go and check and see whether they're still married.

Relationships break down for all kinds of reasons, some of which may have nothing at all to do with immigration status.

The Chair: Steve, and then Inky.

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Well, mine's a process question, Mr. Chairman.

One of the reasons we didn't get through everything last time... Mr. Chairman, one of the reasons—

The Chair: I'm listening. It's amazing what I can do.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Yes, I know. Actually, I've noticed that. You can talk while I'm talking. It's amazing.

It's a process question about whether or not we're going to stop at each section and ask questions. Or are we going to hear the full presentation as we do with other witnesses, and then go through a list?

The reason I ask is that we'll never get through this if we bog down on individual issues like same-sex and other things.

The Chair: Steve, I appreciate the questions, but as you know, and I think Joan told us, in fact one piece of regulation, as we're dealing with now on family class sponsorship, covers about 13 or 14 clauses in a particular bill.

If a person has a question, I'd rather deal with it immediately rather than wait for it. I'll tell you, we have nothing but time, because we can't go anywhere. We can't travel anywhere. So we might as well spend our time learning about the bill.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: All right. If that's the case, I'm going to ask some questions, because I was making notes to come back later.

The Chair: Okay. You can ask them now or later. No problem. You always have questions.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The one thing I'd like you to address, Joan... Every one of these areas is in answer to the question of why something is in regulations and not in the bill.

The obvious example here—correct me if I'm wrong—is that of unmarried children under 22, or over if they're full-time students. I don't think that's in the bill. That's in the regulations. Why not put it in the bill? Then it's clear.

The EGALE group that came before us wanted—I found it rather interesting—to be recognized in normal terms, under common law. Yet they asked if we could define specifically, in parentheses perhaps, after the words “common law”, “including same-sex partners”. So while they wanted to become mainstream, they now want to be identified separately within the bill. Again, you seem to make reference in the regulations to that and do that in the regulations, but you don't do it in the bill. I think you can go through every one of these sections and ask that same question.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. Well, let me comment generally on why things are in regulations as opposed to in the legislation.

The legislation contains all the core principles that guide the way we deliver the immigration program. It ensures that all of the rights, benefits, obligations, and principles are clearly enunciated in the bill.

The regulations, on the other hand, deal with procedural detail and administrative detail. Let me talk about the definition of “dependant” as a very good example of why you would want that in regulation and not in the legislation. The legislation contains the principle that the family class will consist of spouses, partners, common-law partners, parents, and children as core components of your family class. That doesn't mean to say that you can't add to that family class core, which the regulations and the regulation-making authority allow you to do. But it enshrines that the family class will consist of that core component.

How you define “child” will and may change, exactly as we are talking about here. We have changed the definition of “dependant” several times over the course of the life of the current Immigration Act. We have gone from a definition that looked at under 21, to a definition that looked at all unmarried children, to a definition that moved to under 19.

The reason those changes are made is to adapt to the changing needs of Canadian society. What we've done here in raising the age of a dependent child is recognizing that children are dependent on their parents for longer periods of time. Older children are staying home for longer periods of time. They're attending school. They're just getting out in the labour market. They're still dependent on their parents for financial support, and they're staying at home longer.

• 0935

This change in definition is an attempt to recognize that reality. If it's in the bill it's much more difficult for us to make those sorts of changes, and to have the sort of flexibility to adjust and change with the realities of Canadian society and the changing concepts of family.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: The other side of this argument, which is put quite forcefully by our witnesses, is that any ability to amend the way we do business here is taken away from Parliament and put in the hands of bureaucrats. So there's no ability short of a new minister at some point... Somebody took us ahead a hundred years, but let's go ahead ten years. In ten years' time there will be a new Liberal Minister of Immigration. In all seriousness, there's a new minister and that individual may or may not decide to bring in changes. That's the only way Parliament is going to have a shot, and parliamentarians are going to have a shot, at making any of these changes once it's all in the regulations.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we believe that our regulatory process is a very open one. We've talked about the consultation we've done to date, and that we'll continue to do. This is our consultation with stakeholders and provinces and territories and those who have an interest in the immigration legislation before we actually pre-publish the regulations.

The executive makes the decision in terms of what should be in the regulations, but then the regulations are pre-published in the Canada Gazette and are open to public scrutiny for a period of a minimum of 30 days, and often longer than that. With a package of regulations that will be this large our intention will be to have a longer period of pre-publication to allow for public scrutiny of those regulations to allow for public comment and input on those regulations.

Then we take all of the comments we receive from the public, and we look at making changes to that pre-published regulation package, based on what we've heard. When we go back to the executive to get final approval we have to explain what we've heard and how we've amended or changed the regulations accordingly, or why we have not amended or changed the regulations accordingly.

The Chair: That wouldn't preclude a committee from being involved in that process, or dialogue or input, also. So that's something else we can keep in mind.

I'll go to Inky, and then we'll move on.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Daniel wanted to make a comment here.

The Chair: I'm sorry, Daniel. The answers are getting much too long and so are the questions, but go ahead.

Mr. Daniel Therrien (General Counsel, Legal Services, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Joan has explained a little bit of the history between what's in the act and in the regulations on the family class. There is a certain measure of arbitrariness in all of this, obviously, and there's a question of the need to recognize the need for flexibility, how age may change in the concept of the family class and so on.

On the question of same-sex relationships in particular, I wanted to add that what we propose to do in the regulations is to go beyond the government-wide definition of common-law relationship to take into account the immigration situation by saying you don't necessarily need to cohabit in order to be in a common-law relationship.

If these rules, for instance, that you cannot cohabit because of reasons beyond your control were in the act I think there would be a danger that the evolution in the jurisprudence on the recognition of same-sex relationships would be frozen, and it would be very difficult then to change the rules should the courts make the law evolve. In the general parameters of the recognition of common-law relationship you could even say in the act that same-sex relationships are a part of it. That certainly is something you may want to look at.

But if we go down too far into details it may prevent the evolution of the law.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Inky and then Gurbax for questions.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is on common-law relationships, particularly on people who have come to this country and should have left this country but end up marrying a Canadian, raising a family, or else getting themselves into a common-law relationship. How flexible are we going to make it for them to become landed? Will this jeopardize the legitimate people who are waiting in the back of the line trying to get into this country? I know this case has come up in my own riding many times.

• 0940

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The in-Canada landing class for spouses will include partners—common-law partners, opposite sex and same sex.

In terms of dealing with issues where perhaps people have entered into common-law relationships solely for the purpose of trying to stay in the country, that's where our relationships-of-convenience clause comes in. We have that tool to look behind a relationship to determine the reasons why it was entered into and to assess, as we've talked about, whether or not it's one of convenience in that sort of a situation. So that's how we would deal with those issues.

Mr. Inky Mark: What about people who get married, or don't get married, and have children? That creates a lot of problems as well.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Obviously we have to take that into consideration. Indeed, as you know, in the bill we have been trying the principle that we should look at the best interests of the child in terms of assessing situations. Obviously we do that, and we will do that, in terms of looking at the nature of the relationship. The presence of children is indeed a very important factor in terms of determining whether it's a bona fide relationship or not. If we ultimately decide to take enforcement action against someone, one of the factors we take a look at when we assess the particular factors in that case is the presence of children in Canada. So it's certainly taken into account.

The Chair: Thank you.

Gurbax, I'd like to get on. We're only at page 1 now.

Jean, you already had a question on this, I believe. No?

Mr. Gurbax Malhi (Bramalea—Gore—Malton—Springdale, Lib.): I have so many questions because—

The Chair: Listen, we're only on family sponsorship.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: I know. I have to ask this question because I have more immigration cases than anybody else in Canada in my constituency. But I will be brief.

First of all, do you know if they are going to extend the family class to brothers and sisters, married brothers and sisters?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: At this point in time, no. We are looking at the family class as being dependent children, spouses, common-law partners, parents, grandparents, and orphaned... The only brothers and sisters who we currently include in the family class, and it would be our intention to include them in the new family class, would be orphaned brothers and sisters who are under the age of 18, siblings who have lost their parents and are still minor children basically, as in the current family class.

Mr. Gurbax Malhi: Secondly, you mentioned that the mentally or physically disabled who are dependent on the parents are allowed.

I have had so many cases where I don't know how they know what is what, and so many refusal cases where they specify this little boy or girl is not mentally or physically disabled and they do not allow them. There are so many cases like that, but they mention that mentally or physically disabled dependants are allowed.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's one of the inconsistencies or incongruities that we have in our current regulations where we say that the definition of dependent includes physically or mentally disabled, but on the other hand we have an excessive demand provision in our medical inadmissibility that finds many of those dependants to be medically inadmissible.

I'm glad to report that this particular problem will be resolved in the new bill, because, as you know, in the new bill we will be exempting from the excessive demand inadmissibility provisions spouses, partners, and dependent children. So it means that this particular definition will be, I suppose, more utilized, or we'll be able to accept more dependants as a result because we will be waiving that inadmissibility provision.

The Chair: Jean.

Ms. Jean Augustine: Mr. Chairman, there were a few things said that concerned me. It seemed to me that a lot of discretionary powers are in here. Somewhere along the line it implies that the regulations will not be ready until six months after the bill is passed. So would we be enacting and operating from the bill after it's passed, before the regulations are done? What happens in the meantime?

• 0945

If discretion and interpretation of a number of these issues are put in the hands of officers and the minister instructs, would those instructions be made public? What is the training period for officers in the posts far away from us who come on board with the new information in order to make their decisions?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me address the issue of process in terms of the regulations. We say that the regulations will be ready approximately six months after royal assent because that's the period of time it takes for the regulations to go through the process I described; that is, going through a prepublication period and allowing for public scrutiny and comment, the department taking on board the public input and making changes to the regulations, obtaining the approval of the executive, and publishing them in the Canada Gazette. That process takes approximately six months.

Even if the bill is given royal assent, it cannot be fully implemented without the regulations. So we would not be trying to implement the bill without all of these regulations, because it would be a shell. It wouldn't have as much of the substance that we see here.

You speak about discretion, ministerial instructions, and training. I think all of those things are very much interlinked.

Let me deal first with training. Obviously, when you're putting in place a new piece of legislation and all of the regulations, a very significant amount of training will have to occur for all of our decision-makers overseas and in Canada. Certainly, the training is part of our implementation planning. As we are going through this process, we have already started planning the implementation of this bill, because it is a very significant exercise. This bill touches on all elements of the immigration and refugee programs, so the training challenges are quite enormous. We are planning for that. We are planning on putting in place the appropriate training material and programs to ensure that all decision-makers will be appropriately trained in the new legislation and regulations.

With regard to ministerial instructions, as we said, the bill does contain a new feature that gives the minister the ability to issue instructions to decision-makers. Yes, they will be publicly available, as are all of our guidelines now. All of the administrative guidelines found in our immigration manuals are on our website. They are all open to the public. Ministerial instructions, which will provide an extra tool for us to be able to provide more specific and direct guidance to decision-makers, will also be publicly available.

The Chair: These are very good questions. It's a great clarification, and the public would want to know that. Can we go on?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I'm on page 5 on adoptions. The purpose of all of the changes to the regulations on adoptions is to eliminate inconsistency and unequal treatment between different types of adopted children. In the current immigration regulation, we make the distinction between children adopted abroad and children to be adopted in Canada. The new regulations will eliminate that distinction between different types of adopted children.

We will include provisions in the new regulations for what are called simple adoptions. A simple adoption is where full adoption is not possible in the country of origin and where the province of destination agrees to convert the simple adoption to full adoption. It's very important that children who are adopted under simple adoption have the same rights, privileges, and benefits as children who are given full adoption. This is entirely consistent with our obligations under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. What you see in the regulations is an incorporation of the obligations and concepts that we find in the Hague convention.

Another important component is the requirement that a home study, approved by provincial or territorial authorities for any sponsorship application of an adopted child, be completed. This is critical in ensuring that adoptions are done in the best interests of the child.

• 0950

Finally, another key piece is that visa officers be satisfied that all consents to the adoption have been obtained without pressure and not for personal gain, and that the adoption complies with the laws of the originating country. That too is consistent with the Hague convention obligations and is very important in trying to prevent trafficking in children, which unfortunately happens in some parts of the world and is a feature we have to guard against in the area of international adoptions.

The Chair: Okay. What about guardianships?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: There are certain countries that do not allow for adoption, but recognize only guardianship. Probably the best example of this is some Muslim countries that recognize kafala, which is a guardianship arrangement, not a full adoption.

In recognition of that particular situation, the regulations will provide for guardianship arrangements where the child is either orphaned or abandoned, is less than 18 years old, resides in a country that doesn't allow for full adoptions, and—very important here—consent is obtained from the competent foreign authorities and the province or territory of destination, and the child is guaranteed the same social benefits as come with full adoption in the province of designation. These regulations will only be used for children who are placed under these guardianship arrangements if the province of destination agrees to give them full rights and the originating country agrees to their leaving that jurisdiction to come to Canada.

The Chair: Okay. What about age of sponsors?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This one is I would call almost a consequential amendment, raising the age of a dependent child. That's affected age limits that we have in various other parts of the regulations, and this is one of them.

Currently you have to be 19 or older in order to sponsor, which is consistent with the age of dependant currently in the regulations. We didn't want to raise the age at which you can be allowed to sponsor to 22, because we didn't think that was appropriate. People may want to sponsor at ages under the age of 22, so we've lowered it to 18 to make it consistent with what we think is appropriate. Young adults entering new family relationships may want to sponsor, so we put the age at 18.

The Chair: Okay. The in-Canada landing class is a new feature, right?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That is a new feature, this is a new class. As we've mentioned before, what we're doing here is recognizing the fact that we make exceptions approximately 15,000 times a year, to land spouses from within Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. This will codify those arrangements and recognize the fact that we do land from within Canada. It will include common-law partners as well as spouses. The requirements, as you can see here, will be that you must have a sponsorship, it must be a genuine marriage relationship, and you must have legal status in Canada, as well as complying with the statutory requirements for background checks, medical results, and so on.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky, then John.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That's what I want to ask you about. Would it be an advantage, under the new provisions for common-law relationships, to have a fiancé who is a foreign national come to Canada on a visitor permit, stay in Canada, establish a common-law relationship, and then apply, rather than going through the normal channels? I think a lot of us get the same kinds of scenarios in our riding.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think we have to remember that the definition of common-law requires the conjugal relationship for at least a year and a period of cohabitation, unless the couple are unable to cohabit for reasons beyond their control. So an individual who came to Canada on a visitor permit and entered into a common-law relationship would not automatically and immediately meet the definition of common-law. They must have established that they have been in that conjugal relationship for at least a year, under the terms of our definition. So there would be already a period of time in which they would have to try to establish the bona fides of that relationship. They must establish that it is a conjugal relationship before we will consider their application for landing in this class.

Mr. Inky Mark: I don't think time is the problem. That's what they want to do, to live together, because one is the fiancé of the Canadian. So are you not creating another problem by allowing this to happen?

• 0955

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Again I'd go back to the tool we will have in the regulations to allow us to deal with relationships of convenience, where we believe the person entered into that relationship solely for the purpose of being able to stay in Canada. That will be an assessment the decision-maker will make, and if the determination is that it is not a genuine relationship, the application will be refused. Those refusals will hopefully act as a deterrent.

The Chair: John Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Assuming the relationship is genuine, you say one of the yardsticks is whether a common-law relationship is conjugal. I presume you're referring in this instance to common-law relationships that are both heterosexual and homosexual. How the heck are you going to determine whether a relationship is conjugal or not? How are you going to find that out?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Before you arrived, Mr. Bryden, we talked about that a little, and one of the—

The Chair: I don't want you to have to repeat it for John. He can read the transcripts. I'm sorry, John, you came in about 45 minutes later. I appreciate the fact that you're here, but we're not going to ask the same questions we asked before. We'll read it back to him or I'll send him a little note with your explanation. How's that?

You've got another question, John?

Mr. John Bryden: No, thank you.

The Chair: Good. Your next topic is length of sponsorship.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: What we're doing here is in the regulations. The current sponsorship is ten years for everyone in the family class. In recognition of our need to reduce the potential for domestic violence or abuse, which may be exacerbated particularly by new immigrant women being in a lengthy period of dependency implied by sponsorship, we are decreasing the length of sponsorship undertakings for spouses and common-law partners from ten to three years. On the other hand, in recognition of the need to ensure the best interests of the child, we are looking for the sponsorship period for dependent children to remain at ten years or until the sponsored child reaches the age of 22, whichever is longer, to ensure that sponsors are fully supporting their dependent children for the required period of time.

The Chair: Some Canadians might think that reducing sponsorship from ten to three is taking away the responsibility some sponsors have now. The present act talks about ten-year sponsorship, right? What's been our track record? How many sponsorships are in default? The rationale, obviously, for the reduction from ten to three is that ten years might be too onerous on sponsors. Give us quickly the rationale, because this question has come up before.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I should point out that the decrease in the sponsorship period will not apply to parents, grandparents, or dependent children, only to spouses and partners. The sponsorship default rate is, according to the most recent statistics or studies we've done, is between 12% and 14%. So the vast majority of sponsors live up to their obligations. It is still very much a minority of sponsors who default and do not live up to their obligations.

Our rationale for decreasing sponsorship undertakings for spouses and partners was not so much to deal with incidents of sponsorship default and the obligation, but more to deal with the concern we had heard from a number of stakeholders, when we were doing the consultations, that we were somehow exacerbating the situation, particularly for women who may find themselves in abusive situations, feeling they are locked in because of the ten-year sponsorship requirement for married couples. So this is in recognition of that particular situation, where we've introduced this level of flexibility into the sponsorship undertaking for spouses and partners only.

The Chair: But if the relationship breaks apart even in three years, in most cases the woman, because there will not be sponsorship, now is subject to, perhaps, return, isn't she? This probably gets into the detail that Jean was asking about, those exceptional cases. What's the difference, whether it's ten years or three years? I would agree with the principle, but say, for instance, there is an abusive relationship, the principle is now that instead of ten years, you've got to stick around three years. At which point do we protect? If they're both here and something happens to that relationship, shouldn't that woman—in most cases, though sometimes it's men—be able to stay?

• 1000

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Absolutely. In fact, there are no terms and conditions imposed on the permanent resident status of sponsored spouses and partners. They are permanent residents, and regardless of what happens, whether their sponsorship breaks down, or whether their relationship breaks down, we're not going to take enforcement action against the immigrant.

The Chair: Okay. And fees?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Right, fees. This relates to a benefit, we believe, to sponsors. The current situation with sponsorship is that you submit your sponsorship application and pay the fee regardless of whether or not you meet the financial requirements. The sponsorship goes overseas. The individual family class applicant submits the application. We go through the processing. We refuse the application overseas, then the sponsor files an appeal. It's a very long, cumbersome process to get to an outcome that is basically fairly straightforward at the beginning, because the sponsor doesn't meet the financial requirements.

What we've done here is allow sponsors who don't meet the sponsorship eligibility requirements to withdraw their sponsored relative's application and to be able to recover part of the current cost-recovery fees. In that way, they don't have to spend all that money upfront just to lose it; rather, we recover only a part of the fee. So it allows sponsors who have no chance of meeting the sponsorship requirements not to lose all their money in an attempt to sponsor their family members. We see this as a bonus for sponsors and allows them to regroup and hopefully come back once they do meet the financial requirements and sponsor again without losing all that money.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask a question about the right-of-landing fee. As you know, there has been a lot of debate on dropping the fee altogether. The rationale is that Canada has to have immigrants. We have to do that. Our future depends on a good immigration program. So why do we continue to assess the fee?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, the principle of the right-of-landing fee and cost-recovery fees is that individuals should pay for services they receive. That's the basic philosophical approach. As you know, the government did waive the right-of-landing fee for refugees in recognition of the special circumstances refugees find themselves in, but the current policy is that the right-of-landing fee will remain for all other immigrants.

Mr. Inky Mark: The majority of immigrants are going to become huge taxpayers down the road and will support our system. I can't understand why you're really penalizing the people who can't afford the fee, and we have to lend them the money to pay the fee. It doesn't make any sense.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The vast majority of our applicants pay the right-of-landing fee without the need to go to loans.

Mr. Inky Mark: I understand that, but they become productive Canadians down the road and they'll pay more than their fair share of taxes. We know that. That's why we need an immigration system that attracts the best from the rest of the world.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: You may be interested to know that we've looked at the impact of the right-of-landing fee in terms of intake and levels, and found that there was no impact on the level of interest in immigrating to Canada as a result of the right-of-landing fee.

The Chair: Inky, you're starting to sound like a good Liberal. I'm getting nervous here.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It has been said that these fees should be eliminated. One idea has occurred to me. I have no idea whether it applies here. If a permanent resident earns his living and is required to pay taxes, could we not consider making all or part of the fees deductible?

[English]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think I can only repeat that government policy with regard to the right-of-landing fee is that individuals who receive a service can and should be charged for receiving part of that service. Whether you're a permanent resident sponsoring a family member from overseas or whether you're an intending immigrant, you are receiving a service from the Government of Canada in terms of the processing of that application and a fee is charged.

• 1005

The Chair: Madeleine raises a good point, however. If you move from one part of the country to another in order to get to another job or a better life, you may deduct your expenses.

You might think of a private member's bill. I like the idea.

I wonder, Joan, whether you could do something for me. This gets to the point about fees and why they're there. Do we have a comparison of what other countries charge for their immigration fees—or call them what you will?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes, we have that information.

The Chair: I remember seeing some of that. If you wouldn't mind providing the committee with some of that comparative work, I think it might be helpful.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): As a follow-up to that, would it be possible to get the amount of money generated by the right-of-landing fee? Do you have a comparison as to the costs of processing immigrants?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think in terms of the departmental performance report, as part of the estimates that are tabled every year in Parliament, we have a breakdown in terms of the revenue that is generated by all fees and the expenditures of the department. I think that information is certainly available.

In terms of the comparison of what other countries charge, we have that information. We'd be happy to provide that to you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mark.

Mr. Mark Assad: I had the occasion—with Mrs. Thibeault here—to be in Paris, and we were also in the regional office in Damascus in Syria. On those different occasions, we brought up the question of fees. We said there was some concern on the part of our colleagues in Ottawa that fees could be some kind of a deterrent. They said the subject never comes up. They said that they had never heard about fees in their lives, and that they are not a deterrent—far from it.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, in fact, as reflected in the comments you heard from our visa officers overseas, that's what our own indications are—that the fee has not had a deterrent effect.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): It would seem to me that the decision to eliminate the fees from refugees is some indication that there is a hardship imposed in some cases on people wanting to come to Canada.

I don't think it would take too much to extend that thinking to acknowledging the fact that some immigrants from some countries, depending on their origins, will have difficulty finding the money to cover these fees. While it may not come up in terms of immigrants who are lining up at the doors, how do we know how many people are not even considering the possibilities because the fees are just out of the question? So they don't even give it a second thought, knowing it's way beyond their economic means.

In fact, I think we might have a built-in biased or discriminatory feature in our system by virtue of the fee. Since we've made a move to phase it out—that's how I would interpret it by taking it off refugees—my question is whether or not there is any consideration to carrying on with that phasing-out process, perhaps by next looking at minister's permits as a group of immigrants where there are special circumstances, and then perhaps looking from there at country of origin and economic feasibility in terms of paying these fees.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Perhaps I could respond by putting it into a little bit of context.

Moving to Canada is not cheap. If you're an immigrant, or if you're a family and you're considering moving to Canada, whether you're being sponsored by a family member in Canada, whether you're an independent applicant, or whether you're a temporary worker or student for that matter, it's not a cheap proposition. You have to move yourself, your family members, and all of your household belongings to Canada. So individuals who make the decision to immigrate know that it's going to cost them money. It's going to cost them money for their moving expenses. It's going to cost them money in terms of their initial establishment in Canada. If they choose to hire an immigration lawyer or a consultant, that's going to be an added cost in terms of their application.

The Chair: That will cost you a million dollars.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The fees are a relatively small proportion of the total cost of an immigration application, or the act of immigrating to Canada.

I think that eliminating the ROLF for refugees was in recognition of the fact that refugees don't necessarily choose to immigrate to Canada. They are fleeing persecution. They're in a situation where they have been displaced. They may have no belongings whatsoever. So in recognition of the special circumstances of refugees it was decided to eliminate the ROLF. There are no plans at the moment to consider eliminating the ROLF for other categories.

• 1010

The Chair: Anita, a supplementary, and then one final question on fees.

Ms. Anita Neville: I have not looked at the estimates and I'm not familiar with this, but what I'm interested in knowing is the amount of money generated by the right-of-landing fee compared to the cost of the processing. Are those figures available, or are they all lumped together in one form?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't have any of my financial experts here with me today, and I'm not sure how we break down the revenue streams in the department, but I'm sure we do have information in terms of where the revenue comes from.

Ms. Anita Neville: I would be interested in that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay, we can certainly provide that to the committee.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we come to calculation of income, sponsorship ineligibility...

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me go quickly through this, Mr. Chairman. What we're talking about in calculation of income is simplifyng the method of calculating the income by allowing sponsors to use their federal income tax form as evidence of adequate income. It seems to be a very straightforward thing, and we're going to make sure it's allowed for.

The third bullet—on exploring alternative measures to assist sponsors who are unable to meet income requirements—gives us the flexibility to explore possibilities of allowing for guarantees on sponsorship, for example, from third parties.

On sponsorship ineligibility, there are new rules regarding ineligibility. If you are in default of court-ordered child support, or spousal or partner support payments, if you have been convicted of a crime related to domestic violence or abuse, or if you are in receipt of social assistance, other than for reasons of disability, you will be denied sponsorship privileges.

On the last point I must emphasize, however, that there will be the flexibility to facilitate the entry of those cases where there are humanitarian and compassionate considerations and where it makes sense to allow the family member who's overseas to come to Canada because they may in fact be able to provide support to the sponsor that may help that sponsor's financial situation and allow them to get off welfare. So that flexibility will be built in as well.

The Chair: Let me just get this clear. Once a sponsor becomes ineligible... If you come here and you're a sponsor, then you sponsor somebody else—and we went through the problems with the break-up of relationships—in the event that something happens, who will you hurt, the sponsor who in fact gets penalized in some way, shape, or form, or the person the sponsor is sponsoring?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The sponsor. This is all meant to ensure the integrity of the sponsorship process. As you know, currently, if you have defaulted on a previous sponsorship—that is, you didn't live up to your obligations—then you cannot sponsor again until such time as you remedy the situation of the family member you were supposed to be supporting. That's where we engage with the provinces, and some provinces, as you know, are quite active in terms of recovering welfare costs from defaulting sponsors.

This adds additional requirements, so that if you've been in default of other obligations ordered through the courts, we will not allow you to enter into new obligations for new family members until you satisfy us that you are living up to your obligations to your existing family.

The Chair: Okay, now to economic class.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This is a key component, as you know, of the whole immigration program and selection criteria.

The Chair: What sections of the bill would I look at if I were looking for regulations and/or sections on economic class?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That would be clause 12, which refers to selection of permanent residents, and clause 14, which refers to the regulation-making authority for the selection of economic-class immigrants.

If you could turn to page 11, because I think that really provides the details on what we're looking at for the proposed points grid, that is the selection system for skilled-worker immigrants. What we have done in this new selection system is moved away from an occupation-based model, where individuals are selected based on their intended occupation in Canada, to one that recognizes a more flexible set of skills and attributes that will allow the skilled worker to successfully establish in the kind of labour market we currently have in Canada.

• 1015

This is what we call our human capital model. It is a move away from our current occupation-based model. I should say that this model is based on extensive research and consultation with interested stakeholders, research that we have conducted ourselves, and research that others have conducted that points to those attributes that are the best indicators of successful establishment in the labour market.

The Chair: If I could, based on what you just said, Joan, in terms of comparing our point system to other countries' eligibility requirements, have we put it through the lens of competitiveness? Because let's face it, I'm sure other countries are trying to attract the same skilled workers, because there's a real shortage out there. Have we done that comparison? You said you did studies and all that. Are they based on what other countries are doing?

Let me give you one example, because I could ask a question on every one of those criteria. At what point do we decide that the age of 44 seems to be old? I'd never get into this country if I were applying now. Who determined that 44 is a cut-off age? I'm in the insurance business. Is that an actuarial term, that at 44, all of a sudden something starts to happen to your body, which means that you're probably not good enough to come to this country? How do we get this age of 44? Then you start going downhill, because you reduce two points every time you get a little... So I'd have to reduce 12 points already from my age in getting here. Who picked 44?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, let me deal with the first part of your question first, Mr. Chairman, in terms of our competitiveness and comparison with other countries' systems.

In fact, very few countries have selection systems by which they actively recruit and select skilled workers for permanent residents. Australia and New Zealand are two examples. We're always in competition with Australia. We always look at each other's selection systems quite closely. Actually, they're quite similar when you compare the Australian and Canadian models.

The Chair: Is that like the Survivor show?

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't know.

Other countries choose to bring in skilled workers in different ways. Many countries, including the United States, don't have a proactive, permanent immigration system for economic immigrants. They have a temporary-worker system. They bring people in on the H-1B visa, and then after many years an individual may be able to apply for permanent residence.

We, on the other hand, like to choose our permanent skilled workers up front as permanent immigrants and bring them in as immigrants so they enjoy all the benefits of permanent residence right from the start.

On the age issue, that is based very much on our research, which indicates that the age attributes of immigrants and their relative economic performance match very closely the age attributes of Canadians in the labour market currently.

I'll just turn to Mark, who is the absolute expert on this selection model, and maybe he can provide a more fulsome explanation on the age.

The Chair: That's why you brought Mark. I'm interested in this kind of research.

Mr. Mark Davidson (Deputy Director, Economic Policy and Programs, Citizenship and Immigration Canada): Mr. Chair, it's important to remember that the age factor is only one of a number of factors. There are no cut-offs here in the factors in front of you, with a slight exception on experience. But age is only one factor we look at. It is indeed very possible for an individual over 44 years of age to receive sufficient points in the other factors. It's really a playoff between the various factors that we're looking at.

The Chair: That was short and sweet, but okay.

John, Judy, Madeleine, Inky, and John—we're all into this now. Okay. You're going to do a research project. And Yolande. Holy geez. Okay, Judy, go ahead—or John.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): I have a really quick question.

I know this isn't your intent, but this kind of rubbed me the wrong way when I looked at it, the part about fluency in the first official language.

[Translation]

Is French the first language or

[English]

is English the first language?

[Translation]

Ms. Joan Atkinson: English or French.

[English]

Mr. John Herron: So shouldn't we rephrase that slightly as a first, then you get to propose a second official language—for example, “an official language”, or... It just rubbed me the wrong way, so whoever does the spreadsheet might want to look at that.

• 1020

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay. Perhaps it should read “fluency in one of the official languages”. What we're saying here is that if you're fluent in French or fluent in English, you will get top points on this particular factor.

The Chair: We'll call that the Joan amendment. Thank you very much for coming and for your contributions so far this morning, Joan.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a question that isn't exactly on this proposed point grid system. Whether we're talking about the existing system or this system, what mechanisms do we have in place to ensure that our immigration offices around the world are in tune with our occupational needs in this country?

I'm referring specifically to an issue I raised in the House last Thursday. We had a letter from an immigration officer in the Canadian embassy in Germany turning down someone and very specifically saying “the current occupational demand for a nurse is zero”. How is that possible? We know about the nursing shortage, the doctor shortage, the technical, professional health shortage. How do we deal with that?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I think that is a very good example of why we want to move away from the occupation-based system we currently have. The current selection system is based on a general occupation list that has not been updated for quite a long time. The general occupation list is very often misinterpreted as being an indication of what the demand is for particular occupations in the Canadian labour market. It's really meant more to be an indication of what the particular absorptive capacity is of the labour market at any given time for individuals with certain occupational skill sets.

All our research has indicated to us that occupation is, while not virtually meaningless, not at all an indicator of successful establishment in Canada. We are selecting people who are going to be in the labour market, hopefully, for the next 20 or 30 years. In the course of their time in the Canadian labour market they will likely change occupations many times. If you select somebody as an engineer today, that doesn't mean they're going to work as an engineer for the rest of their working lives in the Canadian labour market. The chances are that if they have the right education, the right language skills, the right kind of experience, they're going to move around into different occupations.

The model is meant to reflect the need we have in today's economy for flexible workers who have the basics there in their level of education, experience, and linguistic capabilities, but we don't pigeonhole them into any particular occupational category. It's certainly our intention to move away from that.

The second point is that it is very difficult to predict with precision labour market shortages and to be able to apply very detailed analysis of the labour market to this kind of a selection grid. While we know there are shortages of nurses in certain parts of the country, and there may be shortages of certain types of other workers in certain parts of the country, those shortages do not remain static. They change over time, and having an occupation list is a very blunt tool for dealing with labour market shortages.

We've not been very successful at doing it in the past, and so we want to remove that. It gives, again, the mistaken impression that we're only accepting people because when they arrive in Canada, they're immediately going to be able to find a job in their profession. That, of course, we know is not the case.

The Chair: I'm going to have to move on—

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have just a quick follow-up.

The Chair: Okay, a supplement.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I hear what you're saying, but don't we have the ability, when there is a clearly identified shortage, to send out some sort of bulletin to our embassies and offices to say we do need nurses? We're talking about a shortage that is pretty well recognized in every province in this country, and we're not being competitive, given what's happening in other countries. Is there no way we can at least do something on an emergency basis as these things happen?

Mr. Mark Davidson: I'd like to make two points. One is that we do have a mechanism, through the provincial nominee programs in place in a number of provinces, for the provinces to deal with nurses.

• 1025

The other point is that the advice we're receiving from our colleagues at Human Resources Development Canada, the information we're receiving on the nurses' situation—and this is also confirmed by a number of nurses' organizations—is that the labour market situation with nurses is not simply a question of not having enough nurses in Canada, there are also problems with the way nurses are hired in Canada, the fact that a fair number of Canadian nurses are only receiving short-term temporary positions, that they're not actually being given long-term permanent positions. In fact, in the newspapers recently we've all seen comments about Canadian employers now going back to the States to start to offer Canadian nurses permanent full-time positions.

So there are a lot of reasons why there are problems in the nursing profession in Canada, and immigration can only be a very small part of the solution. The larger solution must be a change in the approach as to how employers actually hire nurses.

The Chair: Madeleine, did you have a question?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: As to 44 years of age, obviously, I'm a little like Joe. It's clear I would never be admitted.

When we look at demography and the current situation for women, we see that women live far longer than men and perform well. So I hope this 44-year-age limit is not carved in stone because we're going to have an ever-increasing need for workers. It's really extraordinary to retire at 55, but we know very well that in a short time it will no longer happen. Perhaps we should remember this.

Another thing that bothers me a little. We talk about fluency in a first official language. That counts for a fair number of points. Abilities at the “well” level are worth only half as many. On the other hand, abilities at the “well” level in a second official language are worth nothing. Someone could arrive here having abilities at the “well” level in both official languages. Is there not another way of looking at it? It makes me uncomfortable when zero appears on a point grid. It upsets me. I was a teacher for a very long time and I can tell you that if I had had to use answer grids with zeros on them... it makes no sense. Change it. Something about it just doesn't work.

Another thing makes me a little uncomfortable. The education of the person applying to come to Canada is taken into account, and that's all very well, but I don't much like the idea of a spouse's education being considered an adaptability factor. It's a little like saying to a person that, if he has more education, his spouse will adapt better to the country. I have a great deal of difficulty with that. There are maybe some things I don't understand. Maybe it upsets me because I am a strong feminist and very independent, but I would not want to get points because my partner is an engineer. That really upsets me.

What's the passing grade?

[English]

The Chair: There are a number of questions. I wonder if I can get all of them put. I've got a feeling I've already folded my paper, meaning that we're probably going to have to come back to this issue to talk about it.

John, and then Inky and Yolande.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I wanted to follow up a bit on this competitiveness issue. I have two questions.

First, we say we're better than the U.S. because we have the points-based system and they have the family-based system, and I think we have something like 60% of immigrants in the economic class and they have 10%. Yet it doesn't seem to be any trouble for a computer engineering graduate from Waterloo to immediately get a job in the United States. So when you add in the temporary class and the NAFTA provisions, I'm not sure we're all that much better off than the U.S. in respect of competitiveness. That's my first question.

My second and related question is this. We really are likely to be increasingly in competition for talent around the world, notably with the United States, and if our process takes years, or many months, and they can let them in fast, even temporarily, it seems to me we're not terribly well off.

So first, how do we stand overall in competitiveness with the U.S.? Second, are these long delays not putting us in a bad position compared with our major competitor?

• 1030

[Translation]

The Chair: Ms. Thibeault.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): First of all, I would like to go back to John's remark, because the French translation “bonne connaissance d'une première langue officielle” does not please me either. It would be better to say “d'une des deux langues officielles”. I think it would be more accurate. Which is the first and which is the second? It's not at all clear.

There is something that surprises me about all this. Until now, unless I am mistaken, ten points were assigned to the interview, and I see nothing about that here. For example, Madeleine was saying that a second official language is worth nothing. I have attended interviews abroad where the officer said that these ten points were used to compensate a person who was overly modest. The person says he does not speak the second language very well, but the officer observes that the person expresses himself better than he thought. What has happened to those ten points?

I have one final small question. We spoke earlier of a six-month waiting period before application of the Act, which, I do hope, will soon be adopted. What is going to happen during those six months? I imagine our officers abroad will have to use the old grid. They will have to wait six months. I am a little uncomfortable about this, because people will know there are new standards. I think people who apply during those six months will feel adversely affected.

[English]

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Currently with the shortage of medical doctors, our riding has done a lot of work with South African doctors. We found that the process breaks down because people don't know what expectations are, whether it's on the part of the sponsor, the applicant, or the visa people themselves. I know we've gotten heck from staff, visa people, because my staff has intervened by phoning the country of origin. If there was better coordination in the process so that people knew what was expected of them, they would probably experience a lot fewer problems in terms of time.

The Chair: Okay, and finally, here's a question from me.

Can you tell us how in fact you determine the ranking? As an example, with validated employment arranged, even though we're not going to an occupation-based system, Judy asked the question, if we have a shortage and you actually have an employer say he or she needs someone and you fit that occupation, you would think it would rank a little bit better than 10 points. Then, on the question of adaptability, which is what I think we are moving towards, why would you give that only 10 points in the whole scheme of 100?

In some of the questions that have been asked with regard to language, it would seem to me that if a person has one or either of the official languages but then is backed up with proficiency in the second, or maybe even, because we are a multicultural country, has some additional proficiency in speaking another language, over and above both of our first two, that is a plus, and not a negative.

I know you have an awful lot of questions. I'm not going to ask you to answer them today, because we have a whole book to go through, but I want you to know that this is very serious. Obviously, a points-grid system is one you're considering, which we already have, and if we're going to do it right in this new bill, we want to make sure we understand. So maybe you would be able to give us a piece of paper on it, one or two pages on the rationale and all the research you've done in order to come up with these points and categories, exactly as you tried to explain. We'll get to you either Thursday or after that for further explanation on the points stuff, if we could.

We will now move on to the section on investors and entrepreneur class.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We'd be happy to provide you with examples of the research we've done in terms of some of the rationale for putting the particular weight on some of the factors that we have. We'd be happy to describe in a further meeting how we think the adaptability feature will work, and so on.

• 1035

Currently the difficulty we have with the entrepreneur program versus the investor program is that the entrepreneur program is not terribly clear in that an entrepreneur is required to demonstrate that they have the ability to establish a business, but they don't necessarily have to have any business experience, whereas an investor must definitely have past business experience.

All the indications are that past business experience is a pretty good indicator of future business success. So in order to establish more objective and common standards for the selection of business immigrants, we will have a common definition that will include business experience. An investor will be an immigrant who has business experience, and so will an entrepreneur.

An investor, on the other hand, will have to have a net worth of at least $800,000, and an entrepreneur, a net worth of at least $300,000. So again, we're adding some more objectivity and consistency into the way we select entrepreneurs, by establishing a minimum threshold for net worth for this category of immigrant.

Finally, of course, the investor will have to establish to the satisfaction of an officer that they have indeed made an approved investment in Canada. We will continue with the current investor program—that is, the single federal fund outside of Quebec. The Quebec program will continue; that is guaranteed in the legislation. In the federal fund outside of Quebec, the money will be collected and then allocated to all the participating provinces according to a formula. So that provision of the investor program will remain.

Finally, I've pointed out at the bottom of the page that we will be providing new tools to identify and refuse applications by members of organized crime and persons intent on laundering assets through the investor program. We have to be vigilant, given that we are talking about fairly significant amounts of money in the investor program. We have obligations under the new proceeds of crime legislation and the regulations on tracking proceeds of crime and money laundering, and we will ensure that we have the tools available to do that in the immigration context.

The Chair: These are what clauses in the bill?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: They're clauses 12 and 14—clause 12 in terms of the selection of economic immigrants, and clause 14 for the regulation-making authority under that.

The Chair: Okay.

Inky, and then John.

Mr. Inky Mark: In speaking with your officers in Hong Kong just a couple of weeks ago, one of the concerns was verification of accounts.

One thing we don't want to promote is laundering of money in this country, but the other thing that I believe North Americans must understand is there is a cultural difference between people from Asian countries and this country. They don't trust government, and you can understand why they don't. So I think there has to be more flexibility on the personal account side. If we want to know every nickel they own, it's highly unlikely they're going to tell us that.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Assessing the net worth of investors or entrepreneur applicants is certainly one of the more challenging tasks that visa officers have. Visa officers are not forensic accountants, and they don't necessarily have that type of very detailed knowledge in terms of assessing business documentation.

As a result, in order to ensure that business immigrants have a fair assessment, we are increasingly turning to outside accounting firms. We are increasingly asking the client to get an assessment of their business performance or their net worth done by one of the big five accounting firms, because we simply don't have that expertise or knowledge amongst our visa officer cadre. We think in fact it's fairer to the applicant, rather than us trying to second guess what their documentation says, to ensure it has been vetted by a competent assessor who has the knowledge and expertise to do that and then bring that to us.

The Chair: John, have you any questions on this?

Mr. John McCallum: I could.

The Chair: I thought I saw your hand go up.

Mr. John McCallum: Well, I'll take advantage of the floor.

• 1040

I just have one question about the investor program. I don't have a terribly good understanding of it. I gather money comes in and is distributed by the federal government for use in the different provinces across the country, assuming the province has some kind of an agreement.

I have a couple of questions. How much money is involved? Do all provinces have such an agreement and therefore the money is distributed to every province according to a formula? Are there one or more provinces that don't have an agreement?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Not every province has an agreement with us in terms of the disbursement of the investor funds. The participating provinces are Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and—

Mr. Mark Davidson: British Columbia.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —British Columbia. They're the only provinces currently getting funds under the investor program because they're the only ones who have signed the agreement.

The agreement is simply that the province set up the appropriate mechanism or the appropriate vehicle to receive the funds. It is given to the province in the context of a loan for five years. They have to return the principal to the investment fund at the end of five years and that principal gets returned to the investor.

Mr. John McCallum: Approximately how much money per year are we talking about?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: I don't have those figures with me.

I should mention we're talking about two programs, because there is also the Quebec program. Quebec runs its own investor program and has a different method of receiving and spending the funds. Then we have the program for the rest of Canada.

I can provide those figures. I don't have them here with me today, but I can certainly provide those figures.

The Chair: I thought Ontario hadn't signed on. We don't have an agreement with them and therefore we have not disbursed any of those moneys at all.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We don't have an immigration agreement with the Province of Ontario.

The Chair: Right.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We do with every other province.

The Chair: That is incredible.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This is very specific to the investor program.

The Chair: Okay.

I need to ask again about competition for the best and brightest in the world, meaning entrepreneurs and potential investors who in fact create jobs. How did we come up with this $800,000 net worth, or the $300,000 net worth as an investor? On the basis of what criteria was the threshold established?

In my opinion, that's a barrier or a fence much too high. At the end of the day, is somebody prepared to bring half a million dollars? Let's face it, this is not a quick way into this country.

If you do have business experience and if you do have investment, that should be one of the criteria that allows you to at least be considered. You have to meet all those other tests in order to be admitted into this country. Again, how did we justify it and how did it compare to other countries that in fact are also looking for the best and brightest?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: The net worth in terms of the investor and the entrepreneur program was done very much in consultation with the provinces and territories that have a very direct interest in this program. They very clearly see the benefits of investors and entrepreneurs in terms of capital investment and job creation in their respective jurisdictions. The $800,000 was arrived at through discussion and negotiation with all the provinces involved.

It is also very competitive with similar programs. Other countries have investor-like programs, including Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdon. The $800,000 is very competitive with those programs in terms of the net-worth requirement.

The Chair: There's a new wrinkle here, even though the investor-immigrant program has gone back and forth over the number of years I've been here. It used to be a direct investment and the investment was defined, not passive or something. Then we went to where the government takes in all the money and guarantees it to the investor so no one gets shafted. We understand there were some real scams out there. Now we're indicating you could have a hybrid of both, but a bona fide investment in Canada could also qualify. It's going to be a hybrid of the two systems.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: It's not really. The investment will continue to have to be made in only the approved fund.

The entrepreneur, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish, if I could use that terminology. By putting the net worth in the entrepreneur program, we're trying to promote some consistency in the way we select entrepreneurs. Currently there's no minimum net worth requirement for entrepreneurs, so these officers have very little in the way of guidance to determine what's appropriate.

• 1045

If an entrepreneur wants to come to Canada and establish a business, what amount of money do they need? It's very inconsistent. What we're doing is providing a level of consistency so it's clear, both to the client and to the decision-maker, what the threshold is in terms of minimum net worth for an entrepreneur. But an entrepreneur can invest that money wherever they want. The idea behind the entrepreneur category is that those are people who are going to get directly involved in business and run businesses themselves.

The Chair: I agree with you, but you've defined investor. It says “indicates to the minister in writing and establishes to the satisfaction of a visa officer that they have made an investment in Canada”. I think you were talking about the investor and not the entrepreneur. For the entrepreneur, as you said, we're setting some sort of guideline or standard, but...

Jean and John.

Ms. Jean Augustine: I'm not too sure that my question is exactly on the investor, but the terminology here troubles me a little bit.

We define an entrepreneur to mean an “immigrant who”, and we then talk about “business immigrants”, and yet there are other places where we talk about “foreign nationals”. I want to be clear what the terminology is and how we are using it in the bill. Could we have some reasoning around that term “foreign national”? Because I have some trouble with that. As I go from the bill to regulations, you seem to be using the term “foreign nationals” and at the same time “immigrants”.

The Chair: That was a nifty way of getting into a very big discussion and a question that we all have with regard to so-called “foreign nationals”. That's a definition, Joan, that we want to probe and discuss at length. We're not going to do it right now, but thank you, Jean, for putting it in there, so that we don't lose sight of it. I want to get into the consistency of using the same thing, and foreign nationals is one question. We'll leave that for another day, if we could. A very good question.

John.

Mr. John Herron: On the fourth bullet on page 12, you mention that the objective is to identify and refuse applications by members of organized crime and persons intent on laundering assets. Now, currently, if an investor or an entrepreneur makes an application, are they required to state the name of their spouse?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Any applicant for permanent residence in Canada has to list all the accompanying members of their family, including their spouse and dependent children.

Mr. John Herron: If they are no longer married, or are separated or divorced, or in the process of, would they be required to put the name of their spouse? Correct me.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: If they are divorced or legally separated, then they would not be required because there is no requirement under the Immigration Act or regulations to examine those people.

Mr. John Herron: Wouldn't that be something that might be, perhaps... We talk about relationships of convenience. Maybe we could have separations and divorces of convenience in that regard. Wouldn't that be a logical situation where we would want to have that information?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, anything is possible in the immigration business, as we know, but if you are legally separated or divorced, then that person is no longer of any concern to the immigration department because that is no longer a legal relationship. It is no longer a standing relationship. Therefore, we believe we have no right—or no need is perhaps the best way to put it—to examine that individual, because if you are legally separated or divorced, that person's not coming to Canada with you.

The Chair: John, you too are very crafty in getting to an area that... I think you asked a fundamental question, so I'm sure we'll get into it as we probe this particular aspect even further, but not right now. I want to move on to self-employed persons.

Mr. John Herron: I've taken very little time.

• 1050

The Chair: Thank you, John. I know. But that's because usually when you do, you make an absolutely fantastic intervention. I'll give you a short supplemental.

Mr. John Herron: Do we check now through Interpol, or any of the like, whether the spouse's name or the person's name for investors or entrepreneurs might be associated with organized crime? Is that the process now?

The Chair: You know, Joan, I think that whole issue is going to be discussed—believe it or not—in the security, criminality, admissibility section—

Mr. John Herron: I'll take a yes or no.

The Chair: —which is Thursday. Yes, I'm sure.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, you see, John—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Any adult member of the family, including spouse or partner or dependent child, is checked.

Mr. John Herron: Through Interpol.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, they're checked against our databases. They go through the security screening system.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it very much.

The Chair: We've got one page left, in fact. Then we're going to hold the refugee part to Thursday.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Okay.

The Chair: Because I'm sure that that piece is also very important. So far, we've done very well. We've asked all the right questions and I was going to say we received all the right answers, but I'll leave that editorial comment for after, as we debate this.

Okay, self-employed persons.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Self-employed persons is the third category of business immigrant, if you will. I should just say that this is not a legal text. In terms of whether we're using the words “foreign national” or “business immigrant”, we are trying to explain our policy intent in plain language. It's not a legal text that would necessarily have all the legal terminology, just as an aside on that one.

The Chair: Are you going to scare us by saying that in the end the regulations are going to be in legalese that nobody will understand and lawyers will make money out of?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Well, it's certainly not our intention—

The Chair: It's going to be in plain language, that's what you're—

Ms. Joan Atkinson: That's right.

The Chair: Okay.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: We're going to try to make the regulations in plain language—

The Chair: Very good, thank you.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: —so that everyone can understand.

As to self-employed, our intention here is to redefine the self-employed category to include immigrants who can make an artistic or cultural contribution, farmers, and world-class athletes.

The self-employed category is a bit of an anomaly at the present, because it's a bit of a catch-all—if I can use that word—category of individuals who are coming to Canada to employ only themselves. It leads to a lot of inconsistency in terms of decision-making. In looking at what we really meant by self-employed, and after fairly extensive consultation with provinces, territories, and stakeholders, we've narrowed down self-employed to include persons who can make an artistic or cultural contribution, farmers, and world-class athletes.

We have a very small but important movement of self-employed farmers coming to Canada now, and provinces were very keen to ensure that we did not inadvertently, or otherwise, eliminate the possibility for farmers to emigrate to Canada.

Also, world-class athletes was another area that had been identified as a group that we should explicitly recognize in this category.

The Chair: Okay. In-Canada land class for temporary work.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: This is, we think, one of our competitive advantages in talking about competition with other countries. Many countries now, such as the United States, do allow temporary workers to eventually become permanent residents. In the United States that is the case for H-1B visa holders, but it takes many years for them to get to that stage. What we are constructing here in the regulation is a category that will allow temporary workers, including certain types of students—students who have graduated and who have completed at least one year of their post-secondary employment—to apply and obtain permanent residence from within. In both cases, an employer must have indicated the desire to continue to keep this person in Canada, or a new employer must have indicated the desire to keep this person in Canada.

We do this already in a certain sense in a not very transparent way. We have what's called the Buffalo shuffle. People who are temporary workers or students or visitors in Canada who want to apply for permanent residence now have to do so from outside of Canada. Fortunately for them, we have a visa office in Buffalo. They submit their application to Buffalo and go through the processing there. This will recognize the fact that many of these people are exactly the types of immigrants that we want to attract and that we want to retain. We want to make it easier for them, and not more difficult, to make their applications.

• 1055

The Chair: Can I ask you... This is about temporary foreign workers, but it is to include students, as I understand. We've already had an awful lot of representation from universities and college groups, as well as the other private colleges and professional training colleges, that there are some real impediments in our existing bill. Perhaps as we move forward one question is why students can't work anywhere other than campuses, which is rather ridiculous to me. I don't understand that. And when in fact they do, and we want them to stay because they choose to, we have to look at having them have an opportunity for gainful employment. I think this goes part of the way.

Is there a separate section on students, or can we rename this one just so that it's clear to everybody, landing class for temporary foreign workers and students? Or is there another section that refers to students?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Let me address first of all your first question about students, while they are students, working off campus.

We are currently exploring with our colleagues at Human Resources Development Canada to look at ways in which we can indeed expand employment opportunities off campus for students. What we are talking about here are for students who have graduated, have entered the labour market and have worked for a year post-graduation, because one of the employment opportunities we currently provide to international students is the ability to work off campus following graduation for a period of a year.

The Chair: Right.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: So the class is really for temporary foreign workers. It may include, and probably will include, students who are no longer students but in fact are temporary foreign workers now because they've graduated from their school and have been working for a year post-graduation.

So that's why we've called it the landing class for temporary foreign workers. There is a little nuance that it's important we mention here, and it is international students who are sponsored by CIDA, who are sponsored by the Commonwealth, who are sponsored by the Department of Foreign Affairs, or who are sponsored by their country where they have obligations to return to their country of origin because that country, or Canada, the Canadian government, has invested in their education precisely for the purpose of them returning to their home country, where they can share the knowledge and the experience they have gained in Canada.

So there is an important distinction here, that we have to be careful that our immigration objectives are not running contrary to and somehow circumventing our development assistance objectives. So there is a nuance there that we are going to be mindful of in the regulation.

The Chair: Anita, and Inky.

Ms. Anita Neville: I'll just ask you a quick question, and you may have responded to it in your last qualification. We've had representations from private colleges indicating that their students are not allowed the additional year.

The Chair: The one year.

Ms. Anita Neville: Would they fall under this category you just identified? Or is there something separate for students of private colleges who are not allowed to do the year of work in Canada?

Ms. Joan Atkinson: No. They would not fall under this because they are currently not entitled to that one year of employment post-graduation. That is, we're very well aware of the private colleges' concerns in this area, and it continues to be an area that we look at with our colleagues from Human Resources Development Canada in terms of what is the impact in the labour market of allowing those students to work post-graduation.

It's a little complicated, though, because when we talk about private schools you have the full range of institutions, from English as a second language, or French as a second language, training schools, all the way up to private colleges that offer professional training. So the difficulty for us is looking at a consistent policy that would cover all privately funded educational institutions. It's pretty difficult.

Having said that, we have been working with the private educational sector to look at ways in which we might approach this.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Would you comment on the due intent of landing within the country? This is the concern that has been brought to me.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: When an individual applies to come to Canada on a temporary basis, as a temporary worker, under Bill C-11 the visa officer will continue to have to be satisfied that the individual is coming for a temporary purpose and will leave at the end of that period.

However, recognizing that this individual may decide they want to stay in Canada permanently, and we may be very happy that they stay in Canada permanently because they are exactly the type of immigrant we hope to attract and retain in Canada, the visa officer should not exclude or refuse to issue a temporary worker authorization to an individual who may be interested in applying for permanent residence in Canada at some point down the road.

• 1100

They must be satisfied that the intent of the individual in the first instance is to come to Canada temporarily and that at the end of the expiry of their employment authorization, if they must, they will leave Canada. This doesn't exclude the possibility that they might change their minds or they might in fact right from the beginning be interested in staying permanently.

Mr. Inky Mark: But how would it deal with people who come here as a visitor, stay, become employed or take up a common-law relationship and then apply from within the country? A lot of that happens.

Ms. Joan Atkinson: Visitors in the current act are not permitted to change status from visitor to temporary worker or student from within Canada. So a visitor is assessed based on whether it makes sense they're coming to Canada for a temporary purpose simply to visit, not for any other purpose—not for study or work, because that's not permitted as a visitor. So the assessment is made on the basis of whether it makes sense that the person is coming for this temporary purpose they're telling me about.

In terms of their intentions down the road, if those intentions are known, the key is are they going to abide by all of the required rules and regulations? In terms of if they enter into a common-law relationship and so on, it will be assessed at that time. But if they're coming as a visitor, they're not permitted to study or work, and that's the assessment the officer has to make.

The Chair: Thank you.

I hate to keep harping on this, or maybe it's the lens I hope we're putting this thing through, but when is a student not a student, especially in light of today's thing? A student could say they're finished, have their degree, work for a year, then all of a sudden decide that in fact they may go back to becoming a student. This whole in-Canada landing class for temporary workers and students, as I understand it, is meant to attract the best and the brightest and have them stay here—obviously if they like Canada—and then continue to build on that.

So I would hope our present system and where we're going tomorrow is put through that competitive lens out there. There are other countries that are looking for the best and brightest students who will be entrepreneurs, who will be investors, who will be temporary workers and go on to be landed Canadians.

I'm wondering whether you might give some more thought to that student thing. When does a student become a foreign worker because they can go back and forth? Perhaps you could explain that.

Again, looking through the competitive lens, what are other countries doing with regard to attracting temporary workers to make sure we are getting our fair share and filling those gaps? There are 300,000 jobs going wanting in this country, and we can't seem to find the people either inside or from outside to help us out.

I want to thank you all.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Chair, could I ask a couple of questions that we might get answers for when they return?

The Chair: On which one?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's on this whole section on immigration, not the refugee section, which I know we'll deal with on Thursday.

The Chair: Sure.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I don't think they were asked, but I might have misunderstood.

It's on the in-Canada landing class. What does it mean to have legal status in Canada, because that's one of the requirements, and what does this mean in terms of people under the refugee claim process?

Secondly, in terms of the in-Canada landing class, doesn't that favour people from countries where they don't require a visa to come into Canada, and what do we do about that bias?

With respect to dependency and sponsorship, we didn't touch on children and the requirement that we're still expecting ten years of sponsorship or up to 22 years, whichever one is longer. What does that mean in terms of a child who was sponsored at the age of one, has been here for 20 years, and may have been a citizen for 17 of those years? Do we apply the same notion in that kind of situation, and isn't that contrary to what we're trying to do in terms of full integration, etc.?

The last question is on sponsorship ineligibility if you're on social assistance. How do we handle situations where a mother is on social assistance and wants to bring her kids over from overseas? Are there exceptions to the rule in those cases?

• 1105

The Chair: Thank you for those rapid-fire questions, because our time is up, but we're going to get those answers for you on Thursday, I hope.

Thank you for very good questions. Thank you all for a very productive and constructive meeting.

Joan, to all of your people, thank you very much. I'm sorry we weren't able to ask some questions of the other two. We'll get to them on Thursday. Thanks.

The meeting is adjourned.