CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Friday, February 14, 2003

0935

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.))

Mr. David McMath ( As Individual)

0940

0945

0950

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. Idee Inyangudor (Training and Development Officer, Pride of Race, Unity and Dignity Through Education (PRUDE))

0955

1000

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Loo (Member of the Board of Directors, Multicultural Association of Fredericton)

1005

1010

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. George Maicher (Vice-President, New Brunswick Multicultural Council Inc.)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. George Maicher

1015

1020

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. David McMath

1025

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. David McMath

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

1030

Mr. David McMath

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. David McMath

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Mr. Idee Inyangudor

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Judy Loo

1035

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. George Maicher

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.)

1040

Mr. David McMath

Mr. Idee Inyangudor

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Judy Loo

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Maicher

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. George Maicher

Mr. John Bryden

Mr. David McMath

Mr. John Bryden

1045

Mr. Idee Inyangudor

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

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

1050

Mr. George Maicher

Ms. Judy Loo

Mr. Idee Inyangudor

1055

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. David McMath

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1100

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. George Maicher

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

The Hon. Norman Betts (Minister of Business New Brunswick, Government of New Brunswick)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1105

The Hon. Norman Betts

1110

1115

1120

1125

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1130

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Norman Betts

1135

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

1140

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Norman Betts

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Norman Betts

1145

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Norman Betts

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

The Hon. Norman Betts

1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1155

The Hon. Norman Betts

1200

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

1205

Mr. John Bryden

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

The Hon. Norman Betts

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Christine Nassrallah (President, New Brunswick Multicultural Council Inc.)

1210

1215

1220

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

1225

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

Mr. John Bryden

1230

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Mr. John Bryden

Ms. Christine Nassrallah

Mr. John Bryden

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard)

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 034

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Friday, February 14, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0935)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, I now call our meeting to order.

Do you have another witness, John? Wonderful. There may be a fourth witness who will appear.

We will deal with the witnesses like a panel, giving each witness time for a presentation, and then we'll have questions after we have had all the presentations.

I would like to welcome you. I know this is not normal weather for New Brunswick, and not normal weather for any of the committee members either, but we're very fortunate that we have witnesses who are able to get here and present testimony.

First, I want to thank you very much for the efforts you have put forward to come. We would like to go on the basis of giving you five to ten minutes for a presentation and then go to the committee members for some questioning during that period of time.

Mr. McMath, could I start with you and ask you to give us a capsule summary of your thoughts about Bill C-18? Then we'll move on from there.

Mr. David McMath ( As Individual): Sure, thank you, and thank you for the opportunity to come this morning and make some comments on Bill C-18. I have provided, and I expect you have a copy of, an outline of some of the concerns I have as a lawyer.

I might start by saying, as I mentioned earlier to one of the panel members, that I think those of us who have chosen to become citizens of this country should probably have our heads examined on a morning like this.

I was born in Scotland and became a Canadian citizen around 1974.

My concerns relate primarily to a couple of areas. I've tried to give them titles, to summarize, the first one being due process. I think there are a number of sections in the act where we do see what we'll call procedural fairness or due process. I've listed a few of the sections that provide for notice, for example, to be given to an individual or the right to judicial review. However, I think there is an absence of due process in a number of the sections. The first one is subclause 16(5), “Removal order”:

A judgment declaring the person to be so inadmissible is a removal order against the person under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that is in force when the judgment is made, without the necessity of holding or continuing an examination or an admissibility hearing.

The fact that there would be no hearing would cause me, and I hope others, some concern.

Subparagraph 16(6)(b)(ii) deals with rules of evidence and indicates that there's no requirement for legal rules of evidence to be abided by. Any evidence that is considered credible or trustworthy can be considered. Ignoring rules of evidence that have built up and been accepted by the courts over a lengthy period of time would cause me some concern as well.

Subclause 17(9) also indicates that the determination that is made under subclause 17(5) is final and is not subject to any review or appeal.

A similar provision is in subclause 22(3). That's somewhat ameliorated by subclause 22(4), which provides that the order is only effective for five years. But still, not having a right of appeal in subclause 22(3), and likewise in subclause 27(3), is also cause for concern.

In considering the issue of due process, regard should be had for the procedural fairness that is present in some parts of the bill but not in others, and I would ask the question, why? Why would we have it in some instances and not in others?

That brings me to concerns related to the charter. The charter obviously applies in most instances to everyone, and that is true of the fundamental freedoms that are found in section 2, as well as the legal rights that are found in sections 7 to 12, and the equality rights in section 15, which uses the words “Every individual”, and that would include a non.... As well, the remedy section, section 24, would apply to anyone.

The rights of citizens are restricted only in three instances: the democratic right in section 3; mobility rights in section 6.... Section 6 has one subsection that does apply to permanent residents. Primarily, the charter does apply to every individual, every person in Canada. Again, the minority language education rights in section 23 are another example of where it's restricted to citizens. But I think those examples are fewer than the ones we've previously mentioned that do apply to everyone.

¿ (0940)

I've attached to the third page of my presentation an excerpt from a well-known and well-respected text by Professor Peter Hogg, Constitutional Law of Canada. He speaks on the section on citizenship, and the third paragraph says:

Canadian citizenship is a relatively recent concept, established for the first time by federal statute in 1947. It is clear that citizenship is a matter coming within the legislative authority of the federal Parliament. Now that the concept has constitutional implications, how will the courts define it? It seems unlikely that the courts would develop their own definition of “citizen”, since the concept has no meaning apart from statute. Yet it would be unfortunate if the courts were to hold that the statutory rules defining citizenship in 1982 (when the Charter came into force) constituted the rigid, unchangeable definition for constitutional purposes. The best course is for the courts to accept that citizenship is a creature of federal statute law and that it can be changed from time to time by the federal Parliament, even though the consequence of any such change is also to change the scope of ss. 3, 6, and 23 of the Charter. Of course, the courts should review any amendment to the citizenship law to satisfy themselves that it is reasonably related to a legitimate national objective, and is not simply a device to limit Charter rights.

So I do think the provisions of the charter, those that relate to fundamental freedoms as well as legal rights, and others that apply to non-citizens, must be considered carefully. As I look at the provisions of the act that seem to derogate from legal rights, procedural fairness, it sounds a note, in my mind, of caution. I think we should perhaps revisit the fact that there is an absence of due process in those particular sections of the bill.

My other primary concern relates to clause 21 of Bill C-18. It's in this clause that we see the power, the discretion the minister is given if he's satisfied there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society. In that case, the minister may submit a report recommending that citizenship not be granted.

I think what concerns me most there is the lack of definition. The principles and values underlying a free and democratic society are not defined in this act. The only definition, if we can call it that, that I saw was on the website this department has posted, on the “Key Changes” page, which refers to how it was judicially interpreted in the Oakes case. The Oakes case was a 1986 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

I would submit that it is not more clearly defined. That web page says it's more clearly defined than it was in the previous bill, but I don't think Bill C-18 does provide any clearer definition of this. I don't think there's any legal force in the explanation on your website. Maybe it's somewhere else, but I don't see it in the bill.

The Oakes case did involve constitutionality of a particular section of the Narcotic Control Act. It contained a reverse onus clause. In that instance, the accused was being forced to establish that he did not have possession of a narcotic for the purpose of trafficking. The Supreme Court of Canada held that was a violation of his section 11 right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. The comments of Chief Justice Dickson at the time were obiter--which means by the way or incidental in passing--in the course of his section 1 analysis about whether or not that limitation of the freedom was justifiable.

So I think to say that this is a definition is inaccurate. The examples that were suggested by the court were just that--they were examples in the opinion of the court at that time of what might constitute these values. They're listed on that web page. Again, I don't think there's sufficient clarity. I think it leaves it open to some vagueness. That issue was not determined in Oakes. Oakes did not determine the values, the principles, that underlie a free and democratic society. That was not the issue in that case.

¿ (0945)

So I think there is some danger in the uncertainty that arises with that. We might ask if the power that the minister is granted in clause 21 is not directed to some security risk, which seems to be in the forefront of people's minds, and I think it's an underlying theme, perhaps, in this act--then what is it directed toward?

I think also we need to address our minds to the issue of what happens when these values conflict. This is a pluralistic society and there are going to be differences of opinion, belief, and thought. Whose values will prevail? How will we determine whose values ought to be given higher priority or standing in cases of conflict?

It also occurred to me, what do we do with citizens who might show a serious disregard for these principles? Why might we treat non-citizens or applicants for citizenship differently? We do have, typically, criminal or quasi-criminal sanctions for people who commit offences against persons or property, and I think there's clearer definition.

My final comment was in relation to patronage. I noted that it was avoided in subclause 24(1), but I didn't see the same effort to avoid it in subclause 31(1) with the appointment of the commissioners. I think the effort to avoid it in clause 24 is noble, and I'm wondering why we don't do it in clause 31.

Those are my comments. Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, David. We appreciate those comments.

Our next witness is Idee Inyangudor.

Idee, would you like to take over and give us, in five to ten minutes, an idea of your concerns?

Mr. Idee Inyangudor (Training and Development Officer, Pride of Race, Unity and Dignity Through Education (PRUDE)): Good morning. My name is Idee Inyangudor. I work with a community organization in Saint John called PRUDE Incorporated. PRUDE is an acronym. It stands for Pride of Race, Unity and Dignity Through Education.

I'm truly delighted, actually honoured, to be addressing this forum this morning. I am a son of an immigrant. Although I was born in Canada, I grew up and spent most of my active life outside Canada. I lived in almost every continent in the world and recently returned to Canada, in 1995, and pursued a university education here. I feel very honoured to be addressing this committee.

The primary focus of the organization I work for is to seek ways to ameliorate the impact of racism and discrimination within the black community, among African Canadians and people of African descent. Any question of citizenship or any law regarding citizenship is obviously of great interest to us, and especially of great interest to me as an African Canadian.

I beg that you will not think I am being repetitive because some of my points will echo what Mr. McMath has just stated.

Within proposed Bill C-18 there are a few inconsistencies and contradictions. Those contradictions have the potential, depending on how you interpret them, of affecting my community and the community of most immigrants, and also African Canadians in general.

To start with, I have provided a summary, which I hope all of you still have. I would like to read the summary page and maybe I'll take questions after that.

The first point is the idea of creating unequal citizenship status in Canada. We believe Bill C-18 creates inequalities among Canadians. Subclause 5(3) establishes a two-tier citizenship status by providing an exemption in which a child born outside Canada to Canadian parents who themselves are born outside Canada may not or would not acquire citizenship.

I don't know how many people in this room are familiar with the recent cases with deportations to Jamaica, but this section really speaks to conditions whereby certain children who were born in Jamaica, and I happen to be Jamaican, and moved over here with their parents and lived all their lives here—they moved here at the age of two, lived here till the age of twenty, got involved in some crime or criminal acts, and are deported back to Jamaica and left at the airport—are assumed to be Jamaican citizens. Quite the contrary. They're not Jamaican citizens; they're obviously Canadian citizens. They grew up here, they spent their active life in Canada, and they imbibed Canadian values, whatever we define those to be. Upon committing these acts they are not treated in the same manner as Canadians who are born in Canada but are sent back to Jamaica.

So we believe that Bill C-18, in this process of singling out some people to prevent the transfer of citizenship, does constitute a two-tier model of citizenship.

¿ (0955)

My second concern is the overreaching broad powers granted to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, especially now with regard to revocation and annulling our citizenship.

I spent about 10 years living in Nigeria, West Africa, under some brutal and repressive military dictatorships. I understand first-hand the impact of granting broad, overreaching powers to a human being, especially when there is a lack of due process attached to those powers. On the powers granted to the minister here, although they could be justified in some ways, especially in the sense of security, without a sense of due process they deny even the appearance of justice. Therefore, they are unjust and unfair.

Clause 18 gives the minister broad powers to annul citizenship within five years of acquisition. The minister is not required to be convinced but can be merely satisfied that the person obtained citizenship falsely or was ineligible for such status. The concept of citizenship must and should require more than mere satisfaction by the minister on the evidence being provided. The minister should be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the person or persons acquired citizenship illegally or did not qualify for such status.

It seems that the bill itself, in the process of trying to be fair, allows the minister to provide notice to such person affected. However, the person can only make written representation to the minister. The minister is therefore both accuser and judge. There's no independent third party to arbitrate between the person whose citizenship might be taken away and the minister. That raises a lot of concern for us.

Historically in Canada--even legally and experientially--African Canadians and people of African descent haven't always been construed as the right type of citizens, especially in the context of racism, discrimination, xenophobia, and all kinds of prejudices. Therefore the lack of due process within this section with regard to a person of African descent, in my case, would definitely constitute injustice. It definitely goes against the spirit of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is part of Canadian law. It also contravenes international human rights law to which Canada is a signatory and has ratified. I draw your attention to such provisions.

Under clauses 21 and 22, cabinet can refuse citizenship on the basis that the person has demonstrated “flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. There is no provision for judicial review; therefore, these clauses are inconsistent with established principles and values of democracy.

The decision is taken in cabinet behind closed doors. Access is obviously limited. In a free and democratic society, such access would obviously be antithetical to the notion of democracy.

À (1000)

There is one other thing I would very much like to add to this summary, and it's the issue of children. The bill doesn't really speak to what would happen to children in cases or revocation or denial of citizenship.

I think Canada is a signatory to the international convention on the protection of children's rights. It is stated somewhere in that document that the rights of the children should always be paramount and stay in the forefront of any decision-making. The bill doesn't react to that, and it obviously leaves it open to whoever is making the decision whether to consider the children or not.

On a final note, most of the provisions in the bill are highly subjective, vague, and open. One government might understand and define what constitutes democratic values, who exhibits those values and who doesn't. Historically, and based on experience, there is definitely fear within the African Canadian community that the government could come in and define those values in terms of racial or other forms of discrimination within these provisions.

Those are just a few of the points I came here to discuss with you. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Idee. We appreciate your views.

Our next witness is Judy Loo from the Multicultural Association here in New Brunswick.

Ms. Judy Loo (Member of the Board of Directors, Multicultural Association of Fredericton): Thank you for the opportunity to address the standing committee.

As you mentioned, I represent the Multicultural Association of Fredericton. I would like to say a couple of words about what we do. The association has been in operation for almost 30 years. The mission is to facilitate communication and understanding between people of different cultural backgrounds in Fredericton. We're also the service provider for RAP, language programming for newcomers, settlement services, and ISAP.

I might mention here too, although it's not obvious, that I'm also the child of an immigrant father.

We recognize that many organizations will be presenting their views on Bill C-18, so I'm just going to emphasize a few points that we feel need to be reinforced. There will be some repetition here of things that have already been said, but I think they bear some repetition.

Really our chief concern is that the proposed legislation has the potential to create classes of citizenship and to introduce inequalities. This is in spite of clause 12, which purports to overcome that. We feel it may potentially worsen the global problem of statelessness and effectively put new citizens on probation for life in a sense.

In clause 11 we don't understand why there must be a cut-off at age 28. We're concerned about the requirement for residence in Canada for three of the previous six years. Also, under clause 14 the potential to lose citizenship at age 28 has the potential to make people who were born to Canadian citizens and to have spent most of their lives living in Canada into stateless people. We see no point in this and recommend that the requirement for spending three of the previous six years in Canada be dropped. We also recommend that people who would otherwise be stateless be excluded under this clause.

The requirement that a person always has been stateless, paragraph 11(e), should also be dropped because of today's global reality where people can become stateless through no actions of their own.

We have serious concerns about clauses 17 and 18 as well, where citizenship can be revoked or annulled. Any citizen who is accused of wrongdoing where there are significant consequences must be given full access to the means to defend herself or himself. These sections do not ensure that the defendant even has full access to the information or the evidence against them. We recommend that all persons facing loss of citizenship have the right to see and to respond to all evidence against them.

We know that refugees are often given bad advice overseas about what to say and what not to say. They should be given full opportunity to explain why certain statements were made and who told them to make certain statements. In some cases, when people are desperate and they're told that they have to say a certain thing if they're likely to be accepted, there are extenuating circumstances for what appears to us to be wrongful circumstances for entering Canada. And they have to have the right to explain all of this. We recommend then that clause 18 be deleted.

À (1005)

We also recommend deletion of clauses 21 and 22. These clauses give cabinet the power to refuse citizenship on the basis that “a person has demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. As has already been pointed out here, there are different interpretations of this. These interpretations change over time. We feel that lack of due process is a concern with this section. We think the list of prohibitions under clause 28 adequately covers this, so clauses 21 and 22 should be deleted from this bill.

Finally, clause 28 lists prohibitions against granting citizenship. Under paragraphs 28(c) and 28(d), it deals with charges and convictions outside of Canada. We know that unfair and trumped-up charges are and can be made, particularly against refugees who have come to Canada, so we're concerned that this could be misused and recommend the amendment of paragraphs 28(c) and 28(d) to include an exception where the charges are abusive or punitive or the conviction is reached in an unfair process.

Thank you.

À (1010)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Judy. We certainly appreciate your views and presentation.

Our next witness is George Maicher.

Mr. George Maicher (Vice-President, New Brunswick Multicultural Council Inc.): I'm from the Multicultural Council of New Brunswick.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Very good. Thank you very much. You have the floor.

Mr. George Maicher: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to assure you that our welcome is a little bit warmer than what you see outside. We are quite pleased to have you here.

As I pointed out, I'm here to represent the New Brunswick Multicultural Council. The general purpose of the New Brunswick Multicultural Council is to help preserve cultural heritage, promote contribution of all cultures in society as a whole, and advocate for policies that support equality of opportunity for all groups.

The New Brunswick Multicultural Council actively supports the principle of multiculturalism and promotes the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. It's a voice primarily on the provincial level and representation at the national level. As our organization represents the multicultural community of New Brunswick, that means we are representing people who are first-generation New Brunswickans and as such will be affected by Bill C-18.

We have some major problems with Bill C-18. For example, I look at some of the information you have put on your website. It says hearings by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in Fredericton on February 14. It says the bill protects the integrity of citizenship and reaffirms that all citizens have equal status and so on, and then it says it introduces some additional powers to deny citizenship. Frankly, I'm really surprised that the House of Commons would go ahead in Canada and frame legislation that would create a two-tier system of Canadian citizenship. One citizenship that is given to people by birth is inalienable and can only be denounced by the person, himself or herself. The other citizenship that is given by Canada as a favour to a person can be recalled at any time under pressure from groups inside and outside of Canada, and that pressure will not be made public, will not be presented to the person under review of citizenship.

Frankly, again, that is something that has been done in the past. It has been done in Germany by the Gestapo. It has been done in Russia. It has been done in other countries where somebody has called in and said “You have to go. We can't tell you why you have to go, but you have to go.” I don't think that in Canada we can allow those kinds of things. If we are dealing with something that affects the person really significantly--it will affect his or her life permanently--then this person has to be able to get all the information. We cannot say, well, it will affect the security of Canada. It will not affect the security of Canada if we provide that person with the information that is necessary to be able to defend himself or herself against the accusation that might be coming from a foreign country or might be coming from a pressure group inside or outside of Canada that just doesn't like the activities or opinions the particular person represents.

While we have concerns on recommendations that we have written up in our brief to you and that you will receive, concerning the recommendations on citizenship annulment and statelessness, the statelessness is significant. I think we in Canada should be very careful about whether we, by fiat of administration, will be taking away Canadian citizenship. It has nothing to do with doing something good or doing something bad. It just might have something to do with not being informed, with being away from the information, that I lose my citizenship.

I would just like to point out that in my work, in my professional organization, as well as with my 15 years with the multicultural organizations of New Brunswick, there are Canadians out there in the world who are doing all kinds of good works. There are second- and third-generation missionaries out there, and all of a sudden, just because those people are running a small agricultural school in Congo and cannot be here for three years before they are 28, we say too bad, you are going to lose your Canadian citizenship. I think we should be very clear about what we are doing with that legislation to make sure that we are not creating hardship, that we are not turning Canadian citizens into stateless citizens.

À (1015)

Our recommendation for that is to delete paragraphs 11(c) and (d) and to amend paragraph 11(e) to read “is stateless through the renunciation of citizenship”. This means that if I fear that my future is better in Argentina, and that for me to become an Argentinian citizen I have to renounce Canadian citizenship, okay, so be it. But it is my decision; it's not a decision by a committee or a group of people in Canada. So I would recommend amending clause 14 to include an exception to the rule regarding loss of citizenship if the person would otherwise be stateless. We would like the standing committee to note that Canada has yet to sign the 1954 Convention on the Status of Stateless Persons.

Then we have concerns and recommendations, as I pointed out, on the new procedures for citizenship annulment in clauses 17 and 18. I think it is very important that the committee really take note how important it is that Canada remains the country it is. We cannot confess to be defending freedom if we do away with liberties. In Canada, as in most western states, we have a system where a person who is accused is allowed to see what the charges are against him or her. We cannot just go and allow charges to be laid, and claims to be made that: “We cannot tell you why this has happened, because it would create some problems for some groups or for some countries. We'd rather tell you that there are problems and that you'd better leave as a result. And by the way, we are stripping you of your Canadian citizenship.” I don't think we can do this as a country.

So we would like to delete clause 17 and amend the bill to provide for decisions on annulment being made by an independent decision-maker, with a right to a hearing with full due process rights, including the right to notice, to disclosure, and to council.

We also have a recommendation on the new procedures for citizenship annulment in clauses 21, 22, and 28. As it currently stands, the bill states that any individual who the cabinet feels has contravened the principles and values of democracy can have their citizenship revoked by cabinet. I am afraid to read these kinds of things. When I listen to what is going on in this world right now and look across Canadian borders and see what is going on and what kinds of governments can pop up all of a sudden and what kinds of things can be done all of a sudden, how can we say that a person is a purple sectarian nitwit, or that this person all of a sudden has no legal or human rights any more, because that purple sectarian nitwit is not covered in the Canadian human rights code? I don't think we should be able to say, “We have to take away or annul your right to Canadian citizenship”. I don't think this works. I have grave, grave problems with this legislation introducing new powers that are not tested and that are very, very open to interpretation by future governments.

When we look at these kinds of things, I think we should always be very prudent to make sure that Canadians are Canadians are Canadians. As a horse is a horse is a horse, a Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian. We cannot just willy-nilly all of a sudden come up with new rules and regulations to do away with it.

Therefore, let me recommend deleting clauses 21 and 22, and amending paragraphs 28(c) and (d) to include an exception where the charges are reached in an unfair process. This comes back to the fact that, as Judy has pointed out, when people come from some countries in the world where there are outstanding charges against them, these would not be charges in Canada. I think it is important to recognize that we live in a world that does not necessarily think the way we do.

Thanks very much.

À (1020)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, George. We appreciate that.

I would again like to say to all of you, thank you very much for coming forward and putting your views forward.

We'll now go to committee members, and we'll try to give every member the opportunity to question the witnesses and delve into some of these issues a little further.

Diane, the floor is yours.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to all of you who have come to give us some concerns and thoughts about this new citizenship bill.

I find it very interesting that all four of you, I assume without advance collaboration, have pinpointed the same serious concerns with this legislation. We have heard these same concerns from many other people.

I particularly think Mr. Maicher made a very important point when he said that legislation giving cabinet the power to decide who gets to be a citizen, based on serious disregard for values underlying a free and democratic society, is itself a process completely flouting the values underlying a free and democratic society. I think that's an excellent point, which legislators should take to heart. You cannot be inconsistent in legislation and continue to be seen as a fair and democratic society.

Ms. Loo mentioned the same thing in pointing out another complete disconnect between granting people refugee status when they're under persecution and then turning around and saying, “Well, we're not going to allow you to be a citizen because of charges made by your persecutors”. Again, you cannot have this kind of inconsistency and have respect in legislation.

Mr. Inyangudor mentioned that the standard of proof is not something he would expect in a country like Canada. In a country like Canada, if you're going to do something as serious as stripping someone of citizenship—and the minister himself has said that a person's identity is the most important thing he or she has—the standard of proof should be that of a full, mature democracy, not what one might expect of only a developing country.

Being a lawyer, I have legal questions and hope that other presenters who have made excellent points will forgive me a little bit for concentrating on some of the legal aspects of this bill, because I think they're very important.

The first question I have is with respect to procedural fairness or due process. In the Singh decision in 1985, the Supreme Court essentially said that refugee claimants are entitled to procedural fairness, full and fair hearing, a right to personally make representation, and a right to be defended or represented. Yet this bill, which could refuse a person citizenship, is a regression from the procedural supports given in Singh.

Mr. McMath, I wonder if you could suggest any rationale for this different approach in how people are treated when they apply for refugee status as opposed to how they could be treated when they're applying for citizenship.

Mr. David McMath: I'm not sure there is a rational reason for the difference in treatment. When it accords people fundamental freedoms, our Charter of Rights doesn't distinguish between different classes of non-citizens. It's simply everyone, or anyone, or every individual. As you pointed out, the Singh decision did accord those rights, I believe, even to illegal immigrants.

So to answer your question, no, I can't see a logical reason for the different treatment.

À (1025)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I notice your concern, which I share, about the suggestion that somehow this business of “values underlying a free and democratic society” in clause 21 is undefined, but that the Oakes decision has given us some sort of a basis for how this phrase could be interpreted.

I would point out to all of you--you'll be interested in this--that department officials, when I questioned as to whether this term was going to be more fully defined, said there are no regulatory powers with respect to making regulations on this particular clause regarding the refusal for flagrant and serious disregard. This is the whole explanation in the bill. The words in clause 21 are themselves the only explanation we are going to get. The department officials said nothing more was going to be in the regulations that would define it or anything else. The whole thing is here.

Oakes, as you pointed out well, not only is obiter dictum, but is also not really designed to address the issues of what might be the values of Canadian society. Supposing Oakes, which talks about freedom of expression and all of those things that are somewhat in the charter, was the whole definition of values, do you think every citizen, or potential citizen, must share and fully subscribe and fully demonstrate each and every one of the values that might be those that underlie a “free and democratic society”? In other words, if we all have to have groupthink on each and every one of these, does that close out the possibility of people having free expression and having different viewpoints on different issues?

Mr. David McMath: I think there is a great concern that it would.

For example, one of the items in the list of values the court gave was accommodation of a wide variety of beliefs, respect for cultural and group identity, etc. I think there is a potential for conflict in terms of freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, and freedom of expression. There is going to be some clash, some difference of opinion or belief.

There is a sense in which, yes, there should be freedom for people to hold and express their individual beliefs or thoughts or opinions, and yet, in having and holding or expressing these views, they are perhaps going to run counter to someone else's view of what might be right or proper or appropriate, whether it's a cultural practice, a religious observance, or anything like that.

I think it's just too vague to be called a definition. There is potential for conflict of values here. It's left in the minister's hands to resolve such a conflict, without any of the procedural fairness we've talked about, the right to be heard, to know the charges against you, etc. I see this as an area of grave concern.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I expect others on the panel will also be concerned. In a multicultural society, there can be some variations in perspectives on some of the issues even raised in Oakes--even if we take it as a standard, which I think is problematical.

I want to just pick up on your use of the term “vagueness”. We know that laws will be struck down for vagueness. In other words, a vague law cannot be enforced, and therefore it is really not a law at all.

I wonder if Mr. McMath could help us on the panel. I haven't studied it at this point myself. What standard are you aware that defines when a law is too vague to be upheld? To what degree do you think vagueness is a problem here specifically?

À (1030)

Mr. David McMath: I can't profess to be an expert on constitutional law, so I'm afraid I'm not the best qualified to answer your question about examples of laws struck down for vagueness. I'm not sure if you want to rephrase your question.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: No, that's fine. I just wondered if you had done a study. I'll certainly be doing this, and I imagine other members of the panel will as well.

If you were advising someone who could be refused citizenship because the minister felt this person had “demonstrated a flagrant and serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”, how could you advise your client about whether he or she might be caught doing this? Obviously you wouldn't be representing such people at all because they wouldn't be entitled to a hearing. In other words, as a lawyer, do you see any reasonable way of interpreting this so you could help somebody who is not a lawyer know what he or she might be facing?

Mr. David McMath: I think it's impossible to give advice on this. You have no idea of what standard is being applied here, or of the definition of the words “values” and “principles”. Individuals could all easily have very divergent beliefs, opinions, values. The vagueness makes it near impossible, if not in fact impossible, to advise a person as to how he or she might avoid falling afoul of somebody's interpretation of a flagrant or serious disregard for those values.

The process is completely secret, not public. There would be no opportunity for representation. No reasons are required. I just see it as an impossible situation in which to advise a potential applicant for citizenship.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): This is your last question, Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Quickly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to hear from the other panellists about how they feel this would effect the people they work with in a multicultural setting.

Mr. Inyangudor.

Mr. Idee Inyangudor: Just to go back to your point about vagueness, I'm not a lawyer, but I have studied and I have an opinion about this vagueness thing.

If you look back at how citizenship has been defined in this country, several groups of people have been limited or denied citizenship. At one time women were not even considered citizens. I can understand the spirit of the law. It tries not to be defining things so specifically that when somebody comes up who doesn't meet the criteria, that person automatically won't qualify.

However, if due process was introduced into the section, there would be no problem. It would be left to go to a full hearing, and then, within the courts, what “principles” or “values” and such--the vagueness or inconsistencies--would be clarified.

In and of itself it is not a problem. It's just the fact that there should be something added to it to make it fairer. Due process should be added to it, not a strict definition.

Really, no one can actually define what the values and principles of a democratic society are going to be because they're always going to change. I would argue that the primary purpose of revising this bill is to remove inertia. If that is the primary purpose of it, no one should write inertia back into the bill; however, certain provisions that allow for a free and just process should be put in.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: So you're saying that because there will be no judicial process--

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Diane, I brought you to the last question. You asked for answers from all the witnesses. We had a little over 30 minutes, and you've had almost half of that time. I believe Madeleine and John should have some opportunity--

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I certainly agree, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Judy.

Ms. Judy Loo: Okay, I'll try to be brief.

This really triggers concern for me because values change over time. People have different ideas about what are the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society. Not too long ago, trade unions were suspect because they were thought to be bastions of communism, for example. Things we accept today as a normal part of our society were not too long ago considered problematic. I think this leaves us open to interpretation by particular “agendas of the day”. It's a dangerous thing to have in legislation.

À (1035)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

George.

Mr. George Maicher: I would like to see a law enacted by Parliament that is clear. I'm always afraid that if things have to be defined by the Supreme Court of Canada, there are problems with the law. Therefore, I would like to make sure that the vagueness is gone. I have very much respect for Parliament. I'm a democrat. I think it is the people through their Parliament who enact the laws for their country. It should not be necessary for the courts to interpret the laws.

The way I see it is almost every case that has been described here, where somebody's citizenship has been denied or annulled, will end up in the courts, even though you're not supposed to have recourse to the courts. I cannot see it any other way. People will try to get the ultimate answer. I would like to have a system where we don't have to go through the courts.

About vagueness, there's a freedom to dissent. There should be a freedom to say what you want, and to say what you want means you're pissing off somebody. There's no freedom of expression if you cannot say something that gets other people upset. Even some acts that really upset other people, such as standing on the corner holding up a big sign, should be allowed.

Then you have terrorism in there. We just gave Nelson Mandela of South Africa an honourary citizenship of Canada. Under this legislation he would not be eligible to become a Canadian citizen. I don't think that any of the cabinet in South Africa right now would be able to become citizens. Terrorism is in the eye of the beholder. How about Eritrea? Are all the people in the cabinet of Eritrea terrorists? Do we let them into Canada? Or were they freedom fighters trying to establish a country of their own? The word “terrorism” is a knee-jerk kind of reaction to what is going on in this world. Be careful about this.

Canada needs to have secure borders. If a country doesn't have secure borders, it's not a country.

I would like to see a bill that is clear and defines exactly what is expected of a Canadian citizen.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, George.

I'll now go to you, John.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thanks to all of you.

I'll follow up on Ms. Ablonczy's line of questioning. Do any of you believe that extrajudicial killing is a proper expression of a free and democratic society? No, you don't.

Just to pick up on what Ms. Loo was saying, we do know that in this era of terrorism some countries are engaging in extrajudicial killing. What we have here in Canada, though, that prevents us from doing it is the fact that we have a law that most countries don't have, and that's the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which defines our freedom of association, freedom of speech, respect for the rule of law, and so forth.

I'd like each of you to answer this question. With regard to clause 21, if we replaced the words “free and democratic society” with “Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms”, which is a law that 's specific to Canada and specifically expresses Canada's view of free and democratic values--as a matter of fact, not only for Canadians but for all the world--would that address some of your concerns about the vagueness of that clause?

We'll start with you, Mr. McMath, and then we'll go across.

À (1040)

Mr. David McMath: I think it would be an improvement. Over the last 20 years or so there has been a fair amount of judicial interpretation of the charter provisions themselves. I think it gives a little more clarity to what is meant. A serious disregard for somebody's freedom of association or something--I think we can understand a little more clearly what that is. It's spelled out. It's not just a value or a principle underlying this kind of society, which is completely vague and uncertain. So I think that would be an improvement.

Mr. Idee Inyangudor: Yes, I would concur with Mr. McMath. It would certainly be an improvement, a known factor to protect human rights, especially for a leader in the protection of human rights and especially because of that document, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms has also shown Canada's commitment to international conventions and obligations vis-à-vis conventions of civil and political rights within the charter and also within the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

There's no clear distinction between the non-citizen and the citizen, and everybody should infer this. So yes, it would definitely be a big improvement, and it might actually deter what Mr. Maicher has just pointed out, where the courts make laws by interpreting laws, right? I would say that the bill as it is considered could be understood in our legislature as abdicating the responsibility to enact proper laws, sending the laws right into the courts for interpretation. So yes, that would definitely be an improvement.

Mr. John Bryden: Ms. Loo.

Ms. Judy Loo: Yes, I agree that it would be an improvement as well. I'd like to see some of the other words changed as well. I think if the term “principles and values” stays in there, there's still room for interpretation. If it says if it's shown beyond reasonable doubt that a person has demonstrated flagrant and serious disregard for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then that cuts out a fair amount of the room for interpretation and vagueness.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Maicher.

Mr. George Maicher: Yes, I would certainly concur with the people with me because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if you've started to learn to live with it--and sometimes we are not satisfied with the interpretation, but in Canada it's a cornerstone of our life, and it should be used.

Thanks.

Mr. John Bryden: Let me take it, then, that the obvious extension in the schedule there is a new version of the oath of citizenship, but it talks only in terms of democratic values and faithfully observing our laws. Would it be more appropriate to have that oath reflect, say, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if we could come up with wording that might be appropriate? Do you think that might be an appropriate thing? Would you like to reply to that?

Mr. George Maicher: Yes, I think so, but there needs to be some phrasing there to make it flow.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. McMath.

Mr. David McMath: It should be consistent with the wording in the act, obviously. You wouldn't want to just amend the oath without having taken care of clause 21, for example.

Mr. John Bryden: They're related, aren't they, clause 21 and the values of a democratic society in the oath? I point out to you that in paragraph 3(g) there's a similar problem in the sense that it's very vague with respect to what it means. This is the part that says that the purpose of the act is “to promote respect for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society”. Is this not another example of vagueness? Could we not instead say “to promote respect for the principles of the Canadian Constitution”, which includes not only the Charter of Rights but the BNA Act and everything else? That would be an improvement.

I'll leave that line of questioning. I do note, Mr. Chairman, that they all agreed.

Let me ask a little bit more touchy question of Mr. Inyangudor. He was worrying about subclause 5(3), about not being able to acquire citizenship if they were born of parents who had been born abroad. It does happen, though it's a hypothetical case, but what's your view where somebody acquires citizenship, goes back to their homeland, lives in their homeland, and gives birth? Therefore, you have a child, that child is entirely raised in the homeland, and that child in turn has a child. Now, should that final child, shall we say, have citizenship when that child has had no connection with Canada whatsoever and his parents have had no connection with Canada whatsoever? What's your view of that? That does actually happen.

À (1045)

Mr. Idee Inyangudor: To that I'll answer that we've just been talking about vagueness, and we now have to find out what his connection to Canada is, right?

As long as I can listen to the CBC, I have a connection to Canada. If a citizen is living in, hypothetically, Jamaica and he listens to the CBC every single day, is there enough connection to Canada? The CBC obviously transmits Canadian culture and Canadian values to him over the airwaves. What is the connection to Canada? Suppose they go to the embassy every Canada Day and celebrate with the high commissioner there, just as I used to do when I lived in Nigeria. Would that constitute a connection to Canada? What would constitute it? They speak English. They sing O Canada, even though they live outside Canada. Where is the connection to Canada? Where do we draw the line, that the connections have been severed? That would be my response to that.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

We've listened to you with great interest, particularly since your concerns echo other similar considerations. With reference to a fully free and democratic society, I will admit that some things have changed considerably. However, some other things have remained fundamental, such as the integrity of the person. In my view, this cannot change.

In Canada, a number of international treaties were included in the Immigration Act. While all legislation is obviously subject to the Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms, the fact that the Charter is mentioned in an act relating to citizenship should be reassuring for those who feel that this act creates two classes of citizens. I for one believe that the act does create two classes. To me, this is obvious.

There's a question I have been thinking about for quite some time and that I would like to ask you. My husband is an immigrant. He obtained the Canadian citizenship because he's married to me, a Quebecker. As you can see, he is a man of taste. Had he not being married, he would have had to wait five years before applying for citizenship. For the past 15 years, or maybe a little more -- years go by so fast --, it has been possible to apply for citizenship after three years.

The bill mentions a new kind of probationary citizenship. Wouldn't it be better to increase the period of permanent residency? When the time comes to apply for citizenship, if the officers didn't do their job, nothing can be done. It's the same as having an insurance claim after the expiry of the application period. You can't get any payment. You can go before a judge but it wouldn't change anything.

So I am wondering if it wouldn't be better to increase the waiting period so there is enough time for all required investigations into the behaviour of the applicants before granting them Canadian citizenship.

I would like to have your comments on this issue that concerns me and that was never mentioned by witnesses.

À (1050)

[English]

Mr. George Maicher: This came up in discussions in the New Brunswick Multicultural Council when we voted on our presentation to you. There were some people who felt that immigrants should make a commitment to Canada, and though it is not the council's recommendation to have that, it came up.

I would just like to say that in my 32 years in Canada, what I have seen is that almost everybody would love to become a Canadian citizen given the opportunity. But there's one group of people in Canada who are landed immigrants and who are not really that interested, and they are immigrants from the United States, who for one reason or the other don't want to become Canadians. I'm not 100% sure why that is, but apparently, even though Canada allows double citizenship and all kinds of things, there's still a reluctance on the part of immigrants from the United States to become Canadian citizens.

Ms. Judy Loo: I would agree that it is a good idea that landed immigrants become citizens after a certain period of time, if they wish to become so. I don't see a problem with people being here for work purposes for an extended period of time and retaining their own citizenship, having the capability to go back to the country they were from originally.

I don't think it should be automatic. I do think, and I believe I speak on behalf of MCAF, that once a person becomes a citizen, once the decision is made, that decision should be final. I don't believe people should be in two classes, that people should be probationary citizens for the rest of their lives once they immigrate to Canada. Once they immigrate, once they become citizens, they are citizens. If there is some problem that arises after this point, then it needs to be addressed by Canada in our own court system, instead of stripping them of citizenship and sending them to God knows where.

Mr. Idee Inyangudor: I would also concur with the former speaker. But I want to say that rather than increase the length of time, we should actually shorten it more. Further, with the world we're living in right now, with the information technology and the capabilities we have, we do not require having five to seven years just to wait to get the citizenship process on the way.

Secondly, we want every immigrant who is qualified to become a citizen as soon as possible, so they can contribute in the fullest possible way, right to full civic participation in the life of Canada, and not keep the standard time they have to wait to five years. So it is a good thing to reduce the time, absolutely, reduce it to one and a half years, if you can. And within that time let the people do the work they should do and get all the information that is necessary, and, yes, once they become citizens they remain citizens. There should be a final process.

À (1055)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): David.

Mr. David McMath: I'd agree. I think it should be voluntary. One shouldn't be deemed a citizen after...whether it's 10, 15, or 20 years. Voluntariness, I think, would be important to uphold.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): In the discussion yesterday a point was raised, and I think it has been very consistent, that clarity is not there in some of the approaches that have been taken through legislation. And I have to say that the government has, more or less, put a very skeleton framework there without spelling out the detail that you folks have brought forward, and you've made a very strong case about having some of that detail there.

This bill talks about a serious disregard for the principles and values underlying a free and democratic society. What does that mean? You've pointed out very clearly that we need to move forward from there and spell out exactly, if anything.... John raised the fact that maybe putting the Constitution as part of it could be the answer, or a bill of rights, so that those values that have been spelled out in Canada up to now clearly are there.

There are other folks who believe that maybe we could, as a society, sit down and spell out exactly what that kind of value means for Canadians anyway, and that might be an additional one. So the kind of information you have brought forward to us I think is very valuable. It's helping us in that direction.

The second point I would like to make, and it is certainly from the department's point of view, is that there are some specific issues where security is involved. I think under the circumstances, in the testimony that's come forward, you have clearly pointed out that where security is involved and people's rights are involved, we have to be extremely cautious. I think if I took that as a general theme, it was very clear.

Could flagrant disregard for the law have a person make application for citizenship and at a later point information could be brought forward and it would be found that this person really had no premise, or values, or whatever, but achieved citizenship a little later? The department has had cases like this. The costs of dealing with that revocation of citizenship in courts, as they have pointed out, is horrendous. We're into millions of dollars a case. Are our resources best spent dealing with that one case, or is the process being so obvious...?

I believe in Ottawa the committee did ask how many cases we are talking about, what is the potential here that you're talking about, and they said very few, but there are cases on record where they will not act because of the huge costs and the reserve. So we're taking about money from one issue, focusing it all onto one or two cases. Is that the best use of the resource when the position is so clear?

It is tough, and I hear you, and I think all committee members really do appreciate your coming forward and raising that issue clearly with us. I do think the public process, the democratic process, is here when we can share information back and forth and hopefully come up with some solutions. So I want to assure each of you that your testimony will be taken into very careful consideration, and we do appreciate you putting the effort forward to come to the committee.

The minister is here now and is ready, so I am under a time restriction. I do say thank you very much. Everything you've put forward will be taken very seriously. Thank you.

Á (1100)

Mr. John Bryden: I'd like to have gone on for another hour.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): We all would, John, but that's impossible.

Mr. George Maicher: I would like to point out that the numbers are few now, but you didn't have any provision for it in law before. Now you have the provision in law, and you will see the numbers swell if you have that.

Á (1100)

Á (1103)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I call the committee back to order.

Ladies and gentlemen, we're very honoured to have the Minister of Business--

The Hon. Norman Betts (Minister of Business New Brunswick, Government of New Brunswick): Minister of Business New Brunswick.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mr. Betts, for coming. We very much appreciate it. This is a topic that has a great deal of work that goes between the federal government and the provincial government and municipalities. It really is all-encompassing. We're very honoured that you could find time to come and give us your views of where we're going and what may be helpful for the province.

The second thing that is interesting is that you wanted to make sure we had a warm greeting inside so you turned the cool temperature up outside and had us arrive.

I think we've had very good hearings up to this point. We've been, as I mentioned a moment ago, in Halifax, St. John's, and Charlottetown, and now here in Fredericton. The committee has looked at putting the eastern Canada section first.

Would you like to carry on from there?

Á (1105)

The Hon. Norman Betts: Thank you very much, and with your comment of putting eastern Canada first, you've certainly given me a great lead. We would like to think we are first in a lot of things in eastern Canada. It's no coincidence that the sun rises in this part of the world.

I do really appreciate the opportunity to be here and bring greetings to New Brunswick on behalf of Premier Lord and the people of New Brunswick. I just left the legislature, so I'm missing question period today, but I'm looking forward to perhaps a different type of question on this very important subject.

In starting, I would like to congratulate the work of Minister Coderre on this file. I had the pleasure of participating in Winnipeg in the fall in the first federal-provincial immigration meeting in I think over 80 years. Although immigration, as you people are well aware, is a federal responsibility, the government has certainly shown an openness and a willingness to work with the provinces to make whatever adjustments we have to, to meet our provincial needs. We certainly welcome that. We've embraced that.

I've met Minister Coderre a number of times. He has been in our province, he has spoken at our universities, and we've been working very closely with him to move forward on this issue.

What I'd like to do in some brief comments, and then I'd welcome your questions, is to outline what our goals are in New Brunswick in immigration. But first I'd like to perhaps give you a number that kind of highlights the work we have to do.

In rough numbers, as you're well aware, approximately 250,000 immigrants per year come to this country. In the year 2001, the last year for which we have official data, we got 801 immigrants in New Brunswick, so 801 of 250,000 immigrants. In terms of any stretch of the imagination, we have a lot of work to do, if we can do it. Even on the calculation of New Brunswick having roughly 3% of the population, if we were to get 3% of immigrants to our country, it's still 7,500. So for us to set a goal of doubling immigration numbers in New Brunswick is not unreasonable, or tripling or quadrupling, because of our starting point.

Why is this important to New Brunswick? We released over a year ago a prosperity plan to move our province forward. It's a long-term plan, working at getting the fundamentals right. One of the fundamental building blocks in that plan is investing in people, making sure that our people who are here are well trained, and trying to entice New Brunswickers who have left to come back, but also encouraging immigration.

This country was built on immigration; this part of the country was built on immigration. My great-grandfather was a Scottish immigrant who landed on the Miramichi some years ago and ended up being Minister of Finance in the provincial government. I never really knew that until I walked in, in late June of 1999, as Minister of Finance, that my great-grandfather had preceded me in that position. Not only did he precede me in that position, but he preceded me in a different political party, which I thought was quite interesting.

But our goals are clearly to meet our need for skilled labour--the demographics are well known and they're not unique to New Brunswick--to support business development, to counter the declining population.

One point I want to make very clear today is the uniqueness of New Brunswick as the only officially bilingual province in Canada. That is something we have to make sure of. This uniqueness and the challenges in immigration that presents, both in terms of supporting the immigrants who come and in achieving and maintaining that very important cultural balance, is very, very, very important to us.

Á (1110)

My remarks will revolve around the provincial nominee program, which we assigned in 1999. We believe it's working well. We moved responsibility for the provincial nominee program to the Department of Business New Brunswick about a year and a half ago. The reason we did that is because clearly immigration is about economic development in that sense, and it very much ties in with our investment activities. It ties in with the needs of our businesses and the needs of our labour force.

The agreement, as you're aware, allows New Brunswick a more active role in recruiting to meet our specific needs. In the two categories of skilled workers, which is really driven by employers, I think we do have a challenge in New Brunswick not unique throughout Canada, which I describe quite often as the irony of having, in a lot of cases, an unemployment challenge and a labour shortage at the same time, and we have to deal with that.

We have to deal with that by making sure people are trained, but filling those gaps where we have identified skilled worker categories and immigrants are available, to make sure we can get them to come to, quite frankly, someplace other than Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Those are wonderful places, but New Brunswick is a pretty wonderful place as well.

The area we've also been pursuing is the business applicant category and the entrepreneur self-employed category. We are seeking investors, like others are, and we do have opportunities here.

I'll mention one of the approaches we've taken to do this and that I personally have made a priority in my work. We've been working closely with the universities. There's no secret as to why that makes sense. In New Brunswick we have a lot of nationally recognized universities--the University of New Brunswick in Fredericton and Saint John, Saint Thomas University in Fredericton, the Université de Moncton in Moncton, and Mount Allison University--all of which have significant international student enrollment. We viewed that very much as a captive market for seeking people to immigrate and stay in New Brunswick.

Why? Well, first of all, they've already chosen New Brunswick. They've chosen New Brunswick to come here and study. They've been here and they know the place. Typically they're young--not that being old is a bad thing. They're well educated, obviously. They're in the university environment, and, I should mention, in our community colleges as well. Very often they have the skills and the ability to fill those gaps in our labour force.

So we've specifically targeted those. I've personally toured the universities and made them aware of the provincial nominee program.

One of the things I'd like to talk to you about is making sure we can bridge that gap from university graduation through to the application process. We can do that through the provincial nominee program, but we need to make sure that in the gap between university graduation and getting a job and getting the paper, the clock doesn't run out, because if the clock runs out and they have to go back home, chances are we're going to lose them. That's one of our approaches.

Again, to give you a bit of an indication of the ramp-up that we've seen in activity, as of January 31 we have seen 153 principal applicants nominated, representing 354 immigrants; 209 applications have been received, representing 509 potential immigrants; 87 nominees and their families have taken up residence in New Brunswick; and another 43 nominees are already in the province on temporary work permits. There's roughly a 60-40 split between skilled workers and business applicants in that mix.

Á (1115)

To give you an idea of how the focus and the promotion of the provincial nominee program around the world, in conjunction with our investment activities, has created interest in coming to New Brunswick, now we're getting between 400 and 500 inquiries a month. We're getting 400 and 500 inquiries a month from people who are inquiring because of the way we've approached this, promoting it not only to immigrants who are here who tell people back home, but also through our business investment activities.

We're hopeful that we see a ramp-up that sees our numbers grow. That brings challenges. Dealing with the challenges of success is a lot more pleasant than dealing with the other ones, but still they are challenges to be met, in terms of dollars for settlement, for example. The settlement dollars are allocated on a three-year rolling average. If you get a very quick ramp-up, you have a couple of years before the three-year rolling average of federal dollars is provided. It doesn't do a lot of good for you in years one and two; it takes a while because of the way the dollars are allocated. I raise that as one issue.

At the provincial level, recognizing this is a priority, we've allocated resources to this file. What was typically a part-time job within government in the past for a person...we now have six full-time staff, two of whom are dedicated to the francophone component to ensure that we maintain a balance and pursue it.

We believe we've had some success. We believe we've raised the profile. We believe we're working to make sure we can attract immigrants and show the advantages of coming to New Brunswick for real opportunities. I guess to a large extent my plea to you today is to recognize the challenges of success, recognize the challenges of ramping up that we need to have recognized.

We've worked with our municipalities because very much the welcoming support on the ground when people arrive needs to be there at the community level. We've been working with our Acadian population, who are a very welcoming group of people, to make sure they're engaged in that.

The city of Saint John, for example, has established a newcomer welcoming committee. I think the experience across the country has been that it has been very important. We have local business brokers, real estate agents—those types of people are very much involved.

We've given the provincial nominee program additional attention. It's working. It's not an immediate process; you don't wave a magic wand and turn a result of 801 into a result of 10,000. Somebody asked me the question yesterday, “How many immigrants do you want?” My answer is, “A lot more than 801.” I hope it becomes a problem. We'll deal with it when it becomes a problem, but it's not a problem today; it's a challenge.

I'll raise some issues and then I'd be pleased to take questions. There are some areas we can improve and some challenges we face. We've had some difficulty in facilitating the issuance of visitor visas. In a lot of cases people want to take a look before they come. I think if any of us were going to move somewhere we'd like to go take a look. We've had some challenges in that regard.

For business, Minister Coderre has indicated a willingness to use the discretion I believe he has under the temporary work permit applicant provision to facilitate temporary work permits to business applicants. Often the needs of a business investment are quite time-sensitive. If the opportunity is there and the capital is there and the workforce is there, but they have to wait for a while, quite often the business opportunity disappears. We could facilitate that using the temporary work permit process.

Á (1120)

We should also use the temporary work permit to help bridge that gap with our international students who have a willingness to stay here. I assume you're aware that an international student has the ability to work in our country for a one-year period after they graduate. We've been trying to work with employers and students to get them enrolled early enough in the provincial nominee program so that the process can work its way through before the year is up. Given job searches and all of those types of things, quite often that one-year clock runs out. If the temporary work permit process could be used where warranted to deal with that, it would be very useful.

Employers want these people and have jobs for qualified applicants, but you can understand an employer being somewhat hesitant about hiring and training a person if they might be gone in six or eight months. I think we're close to developing a system--we just need some tweaking here--where an employer can hire that young international graduate of UNB with an engineering degree or a computer science degree and have some degree of assurance that when they're asked about the state of their citizenship, the answer will be “I'm working on it”.

Given the issues you have to deal with in terms of security checks and all of those types of things that are very important, if we can raise the confidence in the business community that the process will allow them to get citizenship within a reasonable time, these young people will find needed employment. It will be good for them, it will be good for business, and it will be good for our society. So that could work.

The other category we believe would be useful and warranted in our provincial nominee program, in addition to the skilled worker category and the business applicant, is what we refer to as a sponsored nominee.

Throughout our province very active pockets and groups of people in various communities are developing. If somehow, through allocating more points or whatever, we could increase.... I think we would all agree that if a potential immigrant can show they have support within a community, there's value to that. That certainly increases the probability of that individual being successfully integrated into the community. So if a sponsored nominee category could be added, the groups that are organized in our province and very committed to this would certainly be encouraged, and it could help.

On the provincial nominee program relating to the activities and support at time of landing, I understand that the funding allocated for support of that is done on a three-year rolling average. In a period of quick growth, which is what we're pursuing--and if our inquires are any indication, that's what we're going to be achieving--I understand why you have three-year rolling averages. I used to be Minister of Finance. But when you're starting at 801 and trying to go to a bigger number than that, there are a couple of years there. So if any type of consideration could be given to that--

Á (1125)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): I don't mean to interrupt you, but could you just elaborate on what you think could be done as a solution to that problem while you're dealing with it?

The Hon. Norman Betts: I guess the simple solution--not that there ever is a simple solution--would be to waive the rolling average requirement for those jurisdictions in which you see a quick growth coming.

If we turn that 800 into 2,400 and see a threefold increase, well, we're only going to see--I can't do the math in my head--something less than a doubling of the funding for the next year. So if it were not a rolling average, but were based, in this period of growth, on the projection of the number of immigrants who were coming, it might possibly be a solution.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Maybe you could comment also on the fact that right across Atlantic Canada we've heard that you can't do it just on average numbers, that there are basic costs, and those basic costs--

The Hon. Norman Betts: Absolutely.

There are basic things that have to be there, whether it's 800 people a year or 8,000. We can talk to the people in the communities who are more directly involved in this than I am, and hopefully you'll hear from them. But I think you've raised it very well. There needs to be a basic amount for support, and then there are other costs that are numbers driven.

Not to sound like an accountant, but if we could identify the fixed costs and the variable costs and have a formula that works, I think that would make sense.

But I'll add, going back to something I mentioned before, it's incumbent for us to recognize the uniqueness of New Brunswick as the only officially bilingual province in Canada. What that would mean is that if language training services, for example, were required, we are not only obligated, but we want to be able to provide those services in both official languages. That may not be true in Alberta, but it's certainly true in New Brunswick.

So that's another thing that I think has to be recognized in that fixed-cost component.

They told me to talk for five minutes, and I probably have. I think I've raised most of the issues.

In closing, I want to say I'm certainly not here to complain. I welcome you being here and I welcome the work that's been done. As I said publicly, to me, Minister Coderre has been a breath of fresh air on this file, because he's recognized some of the challenges.

The world's changing. We have issues of security and all kinds of other issues. But we live in a country and a part of the world that was built on immigrants, and we're at a stage where we recognize there are a lot of other reasons--social, cultural, and otherwise--to welcome people to our province. But wearing the hat that I wear, strictly for economic development and prosperity reasons this is a very, very important initiative.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

We have approximately 30 minutes left. The minister did take 30 minutes for the presentation, and we have three people. I'll try to be as open as I can about everyone's time, but take all of us into consideration over the 30 minutes.

John, would you like to start?

Á (1130)

Mr. John Bryden: Yes, I'd like to begin by saying, Mr. Minister, that you have again demonstrated the reputation governments of New Brunswick have for approaching difficult problems with creativity and a lot of feeling. I am very impressed by the provincial nominee program and by the fact that New Brunswick obviously recognizes it's very necessary to have immigration.

New Brunswick is in a unique situation in Canada, although it's echoed, of course, with other rural or non-urban areas of Canada. They have some of the same problems. But New Brunswick is very unique.

Do you have the means to try to recruit immigration by specifically addressing what New Brunswick has to offer immigrants? In other words--I'll give you a good example--Quebec has its own consular offices in Paris to recruit immigration directly to Quebec. Do you have anything similar?

The Hon. Norman Betts: Not similar to what Quebec does, because they're very active around the world.

The main reason we put responsibility for the provincial nominee program and immigration within the Department of Business New Brunswick was because of the synergies the activities have with our investment activities.

We're developing an international strategy to look at what areas of the globe we're going to be focusing on. Clearly, we're going to be in Asia, including Hong Kong and China. It's just a booming economy. We're also going to be in the European Community. Take a look at the map and see where we are. Our ports are quite close.

The answer is yes and no, which is maybe a typical politician's answer. Through our investment activities we have made sure that the fact that we're out there seeking investment ties into the fact that we're out there seeking immigrants as well.

We've ramped up our staff, as I mentioned. We must be doing something right because we've gone from a very minimal level of activity to 400 to 500 inquiries per month. So we're getting the word out.

In terms of seeking investment, of course we're doing that, and the tie-in is very much there. I'll give you an example. In northeastern New Brunswick we have the most modern fine yarn plant in the world in a wonderful little community called Pokemouche. The investors are from across the water in Europe. They have operations in India, Africa, and the U.K. Part of their challenge was to bring management with them. Some of the management from other operations around the world were needed to come and establish it. So from an investment point of view, quite often you get the investment and they want to bring the key people with it to make it work.

In the skilled worker category, we're working with our employers to identify specific areas of availability of work and careers. We will be launching very soon, in conjunction with our repatriation program, a website that will identify...I don't want to say a number because I have media sitting behind me and they'll put a microphone in my face when I go outside, and I learned a long time ago not to upstage a premier's announcement. But there will be a lot of jobs in New Brunswick, and not only for New Brunswickers. These are career jobs that we've identified in New Brunswick. They'll be available to New Brunswickers who are here and those who have moved elsewhere in Canada. Unfortunately, one of our biggest exports for the last few decades has been our people. We'd like them to come back, and we want to show them opportunities to come back. But they'll also be available to people around the world.

I'm sure you've heard of some of the challenges around that in terms of our professionals and the whole issue of acceptance of foreign credentials and those types of issues. You probably have nothing to learn about that subject from me, other than that I recognize it. We have had some discussions with some of our provincial associations, such as the engineers. I realize that we have to be concerned about quality control, which we all want, but we have to make sure there's not an element of professional protectionism in there either. If that's the case, we have to recognize that. Let's not pretend there's not an element of that there. We're all human, and I suspect that would be the case.

So a long answer to your question is that we have no intention of setting up offices around the world. We do believe it's a federal responsibility. The federal government has a role.

Á (1135)

I have personally met with the offices in Hong Kong, for example, to make sure the people who are on the ground have New Brunswick on the radar screen, because we heard anecdotally that perhaps—I have no direct evidence of this, but I've heard it—people are saying, “What would you want to go there for?” We don't expect our federal government people in the field to say that. We expect our people in the field to be promoting New Brunswick as much as I do. At the same time we have a responsibility to make sure they have the information. We want to work through that system.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Do our missions do the job they should for you?

I don't mean to interrupt, John, but I think that's important for us to know.

Mr. John Bryden: That's exactly what I meant.

The Hon. Norman Betts: I don't want to say no and I don't want to say yes. If the results showed the case—801 of 250,000 immigrants—no. That number speaks for itself. Are the people out there doing things to encourage immigrants to come to New Brunswick? Well, if 801 out of 250,000 is the report card, the answer is no.

What the solution is, I think, is making sure, as I've said, that the people in the missions are educated on what is available. Maybe they should be asking more or maybe we should be providing more and making sure the support is on the ground to do that.

We've had situations, and they've been fixed. We have a great little store on Regent Street here that has food for the Asian community, just the types of food they're used to. A few years ago the people of Saint John used to travel to shop there. Now they can get it in Saint John. It sounds simple, but that's a very important type of support that has to be there on the ground.

I don't want to point fingers or lay blame, but I think we can all do a better job.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Okay.

John, I think if we have time we'll come back. There are about nine minutes left, and I'm going to go Diane.

Mr. John Bryden: You took my line of questioning there.

The federal government's policy on immigration for a very long time was not to target particular countries or particular groups within the world. But I would have thought New Brunswick's needs could be very well answered by targeting immigration from a country like Belgium, because Belgium is a small, crowded country that is already bilingual and has lots of skilled expertise. I have always had reservations about the fact that we don't do that. Another group who again would address New Brunswick's needs are the people of Turkish origin working in Germany who can't get citizenship—a classic case of a cadre of people who have hard skills and have no hope of citizenship in Germany.

Should the minister be re-examining this policy and perhaps developing a program, if he's going to bring people to the remote areas of Canada, that targets those countries that have the kinds of people those areas of Canada need?

Á (1140)

The Hon. Norman Betts: Yes, but it should be from the ground up. We're going through the process right now of recognizing that we live in a global world, recognizing that you are sitting today in the most trade-active province in Canada: 72% of our GD comes from trade. I've said it before: if we don't trade, we don't eat. It's pretty simple. We have to trade in New Brunswick. We're a small province with a small population.

Both from a trade perspective and from an immigration perspective, we can't be everywhere—we know that—so we're developing an internationalization strategy provincially that will do just that. It will look at the areas around the world where, for the reasons and examples you cite, we should be, given that we can't be everywhere.

As to how that's coordinated with the federal minister and the federal government, my suggestion would be that it be done through either the provincial nominee program or some federal-provincial agreement. I guess what I'm saying is I agree with what you say, but I would prefer that the provincial government decided where we should be around the world rather than the federal government, because we believe we know our situation better; we know our communities better; we know our opportunities better. So yes, I agree with what you say, and I think probably, with some discussion, there would be very quickly agreement as to where we should be.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you, Minister, for being here. We can only imagine the sacrifice it must have been to miss question period.

The Hon. Norman Betts: Oh, darn!

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I wonder whether you have had an opportunity to do a study here in New Brunswick of the specific labour force needs that are most pressing. If you have been able to do such a study, could you just share with us some of the findings?

The Hon. Norman Betts: We have, and my colleague Mr. McFarlane, the Minister of Training and Employment Development, could certainly speak to that more than I.

One of the areas is the trades. Skilled tradespeople across this country are in great demand. We have a growing IT sector. We have everything from engineers.... And it's not so much the shortage today, although there are shortages. As I said, we're going to be launching a website that will clearly point those out, but we've all seen the demographic bubbles, and there are some big bubbles of people moving through a lot of our workforce.

In the next five to ten years there are going to be real shortages. We hear it from our construction industry and we hear it from our universities in terms of recruiting faculty. We hear about all those types of issues from professionals, be they doctors, nurses, or whoever. It's fairly well documented, the demographic challenge we have across the country. When your population numbers are smaller, as they are in New Brunswick, the effect of that is even more....

We can certainly get you some information on that. It varies throughout the province too. And New Brunswick is not unique; we have our urban-rural challenges. That's a big challenge across the country. There's a big difference between the needs of southern New Brunswick and the needs of northern New Brunswick. So yes, we have that data.

We're certainly able to tell a provincial nominee applicant whether they're.... In a lot of cases they're coming for a job, so we can identify whether the shortage is there. If we get an inquiry, we're certainly able to identify what the area of shortage is, but in general it's pretty widespread.

Á (1145)

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: I commend you for having the study done. I know other provinces haven't been so far-sighted, so that's a credit to you.

Another corollary of that is this area of recognition of foreign credentials. You've mentioned the need to get people swiftly located into job openings, but often an even bigger problem is having their qualifications accepted so they can practice their trade or profession once they get here. Have you begun to work with the various trades and professions in New Brunswick on that issue? Can you just give us some idea of some of the progress and some of the frustrations you might be experiencing in that area?

The Hon. Norman Betts: We're at the discussion stage. What they should have is not the ability to practise their trade once they get here, it's the ability to know that they can practise their trade before they leave wherever they are. That's the challenge, to somehow prequalify a potential immigrant. That's an ideal situation, if some engineers are going to come from Hong Kong, for them to know before they leave that when they get here they can go to work. We've all heard the stories of PhDs driving taxis, and we have some very specific examples in Fredericton of professionals who cannot practise.

We're at the discussion stage with that. It was talked to at great length at the federal-provincial meeting in Winnipeg in October, and we're moving forward on that. Although immigration is a federal responsibility--and that's an easy thing for me to say occasionally--in a lot of cases professional accreditation is a provincial responsibility. As a chartered accountant, I get certified by the New Brunswick Institute of Chartered Accountants. Now we have reciprocal agreements, so I can work across the country, but it's a provincial association. Our engineering association is a provincial association.

Another thing I'll mention in that regard is that as much as we're a full partner in this great country, if there are any initiatives coming down from the federal government, New Brunswick is the perfect place for a pilot project. We're the perfect pilot project because we're of a very manageable size, you have a very cooperative government, and you have a willingness and a recognition of this industry. If there are any federal initiatives, give us a call.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Well, I'll certainly bear that in mind.

There's just this one final matter. We've received a brief from the New Brunswick Multicultural Council with respect to this provincial nominee program, and they make a very strong case for fostering attachment on the part of immigrants to new communities so there will be a high rate of retention. Other provinces have told us in these hearings that they often feel like a stepping stone to Toronto, Montreal, or Vancouver.

First of all, the question is, do you have that concern? Second, are you working with organizations such as the multicultural council and others to create welcoming communities? Immigrants don't just need a job, they need to build a life that is satisfying to them in other respects.

The Hon. Norman Betts: Absolutely. It's not about recruitment, it's about recruitment and retention. We are concerned about that. You've met with some of the associations, who do a great job. On the ground they are the welcoming people, and we believe that's where that resource has to be. Again, through the three-year rolling average issue, or however that funding is distributed, that's where the resources need to go. They need to go on the ground.

I don't believe we have any desire to bureaucratize that within government. We don't need a “Department of Welcoming”, but we do need good people--some of whom are probably sitting behind me, people who have a passion for this and who want to welcome these people--to have the resources to do what they do best. We would certainly encourage that.

I'll mention one thing, though. In the provincial nominee program people are free to move across the country, but I think they, the people in the system, should be reminded of the moral responsibility they have to come to New Brunswick if we put the work and effort into facilitating their arrival in Canada. Perhaps when they fly from wherever and land in Montreal and they're met by the immigration officials, they should be reminded of this moral responsibility, because we don't want to be used as the vehicle to get to Toronto. We don't. If the easy way to get to Toronto is to call good old New Brunswick, we're not interested. We can let my colleagues in Ontario deal with that. These are good people with good morals, and somehow we have to make them aware of this.

I'll throw out one thing Minister Coderre has publicly indicated he'd be willing to consider, and that is the use of the temporary work permit authority he has to allow people to come for a specific job in a specific place for a period of time while they move through the system--if that can help. There are some issues of labour mobility that I'm sure will be discussed in that regard.

I've always believed there are two ways to get things done. There's a carrot and there's a stick, and we would prefer to use the carrot. The carrot is in the building of those supports.

Á (1150)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

I am very happy to be here, in the only officially bilingual province. I will therefore speak in French which I know will delight you. We have been in the eastern provinces since the beginning of this week and this is the first time we have the honour of welcoming a minister.

After hearing your presentation, I understand you have taken on a major challenge, which is to increase the number of people who choose New Brunswick. When you say that between 400 and 500 applications are reviewed every month, I find this impressive. At the same time, we are hearing that promotion of eastern provinces isn't done adequately or satisfactorily by our overseas immigration officers.

Having been able to see how much these officers are overloaded -- and the word isn't too strong -- I think they have to be quite extraordinary but there's a limit to everything. In this context, obviously it is best for everyone to speak for themselves. Consequently the challenge for a province like New Brunswick is to find the means to speak for itself. It is very well to attract people but you also have to be able to retain them. For that, you need creativity and imagination. There's a French proverb -- I don't know if there's an English equivalent -- that literally says: "You can't attract flies with vinegar". I'm sure there's a lot of honey in New Brunswick, maybe not buckwheat honey but definitely good honey.

Thus it is the political will that has to be there, as well as what I would call a "civic" will. In other words, what do you intend to do in order to increase the awareness of the people of New Brunswick to the fact that the province has no choice? As a matter of fact, no province in Canada can say that even though immigration is very good, they don't really want it. In my view, if that were true, every province would be smaller for it.

So I would like to know how much you are investing in the support of organizations. It is true this is a federal responsibility but everyone knows that the money used by the federal government comes from the citizens of all provinces. Therefore this money should be used to meet real needs of the people. What then is your strategy if you want the next budget speech to announce enough money for your plans? Of course, money isn't everything but it's definitely useful.

Á (1155)

[English]

The Hon. Norman Betts: You're absolutely right on a lot of issues, and I'd like to address all of them.

First, one comment you made that's very relevant is on the will of a civil society to recognize and accept the need for immigrants. I live in a small town in rural New Brunswick. I'm sure of one of the things I'll hear on this issue. If I get a little press out of this today, somebody will walk up to me and say, “What are you doing trying to bring immigrants here when I don't have a job?” We'll hear that.

This is not about taking jobs from New Brunswickers. This is not about that. This is about recognizing that we have skill shortages in specific areas. Yes, we want to train our own people to do those jobs as well, but over and above that, the numbers are such that we have to recognize the need for this. In addition to all of the other social and cultural advantages, this is an economic development issue.

We need people. As baby boomers like us move on through, we need people. It's very important, and I'm pleased you raised it, the will--and the role I think we have as a provincial government--to get the message out. We do have a role in this.

Getting that message out is part of the reason I'm here today, so the people of New Brunswick realize this is not about taking jobs from New Brunswickers; this is about having a vibrant economy.

The other point is, we're not in competition for immigrants with Ontario or Quebec or anyone else. There are a lot of people in this world. When we look at our numbers, the effect that tripling our immigration numbers in New Brunswick would have across Canada is not even an issue. It's not about taking people away.

In terms of what we are doing and what we can do to promote this, you're absolutely right, we have a role to play in its promotion. We've tied it in to our investment activities to achieve the synergies of promoting these two together.

But it does come down to resources. Immigration is a federal responsibility, and it should be. We believe that. We need to work in partnership to coordinate the activities of the federal government and the officials in the field to meet our provincial needs. There is very much a willingness on the part of Minister Coderre and our government to do this.

We have a role to promote the importance of this to our own people. We have a role to devote resources to this. We've added six people in this function. I think we have about 200 people in my department; that's pretty small compared to the size of this department federally, I would guess. But in times of tight resources, in times when we've reduced the size of the public service to meet the fiscal challenges, we've committed to this.

It does come down to those resources for promotion and support. How do we convince Minister Manley in his budget next week to put more resources to this? I do it by coming here and talking to you, and hopefully you take the message back. We do it by talking to the federal minister every time we can about how important this is.

But in the end, the willingness has to be there to support what we see as a very important economic development issue for our country.

Â (1200)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We all have basic needs like a job, an environment were you can grow and a shelter. I don't know if the availability of housing is a problem in New Brunswick. In Quebec, it's a serious problem, and I know that there is a similar situation in several other provinces. We know that federal investments have been extremely limited in the social housing area. Can you tell us about the housing situation here? It's very nice to attract people in your province, but if you can't find them to place to live, it's definitely a problem.

[English]

The Hon. Norman Betts: Well, we could certainly let my colleague Joan MacAlpine, Minister of Family and Community Services, speak to that more than I.

From the seat I sit in, as Minister of Business New Brunswick, attracting workers in the skilled worker category, where they're coming to a job, in the business category, where they're coming as an entrepreneur with a business plan, which we have a responsibility to make sure has a reasonable probability to succeed, the best social program for those people is a job. That's what this is all about.

If these people come for jobs, we believe there are opportunities here. We believe there are going to be growing opportunities in the future. Maybe I'm oversimplifying, but if they come to a job in a province with a good quality of life, the roof over the head will perhaps look after itself. It's a very difficult issue that I don't want to oversimplify, but clearly we, as a government, believe--Premier Lord has said it many times--we need to be fiscally responsible but socially compassionate to those who need our help--and we are.

We have some great advantages in this country. Health care is the debate of the day, but, boy, I tell you, if you look around the world this is a pretty good country when it comes to health care, compared to some of the places people come from. We have a lot of very good social advantages here.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Mr. Minister, I want to say thank you very much. We are indeed in debt to you, not only for your taking time in coming here today, but for your very supportive words in the process. You have pointed out similar issues to those we have heard across Atlantic Canada. Obviously, we have to find some balance between the shortage of technical and professional people and explain publicly--and clearly--how unemployment and future developments can be balanced to make us more prosperous and make our communities thrive more.

I think it's clear that funding, both provincially and federally, has to be in place. Atlantic Canada does face separate challenges from those faced in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver--the larger cities. We don't have the concentration of social networks here that are in the major areas. Therefore a lot of our settlement programs often end up not succeeding. We're losing the people we're targeting and bringing in. In many respects, this is ongoing work, a work in progress, and one that has to be kept open, very clearly.

I smiled because when Madeleine raised the question of funding there were several people behind you who you didn't see who gave it two thumbs up. They realize the importance of funding because they're the people on the ground who have to deal with horrendous problems in socialization, housing, English as a second language, and all of the myriad services required in order to integrate new Canadians, to have them accepted and made comfortable in our society. So it is really a pleasure for us to have you here, and I want to thank you very much for your time.

John.

Â (1205)

Mr. John Bryden: I have one word, Mr. Chairman. If the minister would care to immigrate to Ontario, the provincial Government of Ontario could certainly use him there. Should you ever get tired of New Brunswick....

The Hon. Norman Betts: Well, boy, no, not a chance. We live in a great country and a great province. And while I have you here, since you gave me the opening....

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Mr. Minister, you stay here and keep things rolling so we can be very proud of the system we're developing.

The Hon. Norman Betts: Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you.

Â (1206)

Â (1209)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Ms. Nassrallah, we'd very much appreciate you coming forward. The committee has half an hour. We're going to open the floor for your presentation. Then we will share the balance of the time with some questions, so our members can delve into some of the issues further.

Ms. Nassrallah, you have the floor.

Ms. Christine Nassrallah (President, New Brunswick Multicultural Council Inc.): Thank you very much, and as much as possible I'll try to stick to my text in the interest of time. It's lunch hour and I don't want to be taking you away from lunch.

On behalf of the New Brunswick Multicultural Council, I would like to welcome you to our picturesque province. I would like to assure you that while the temperature outside is extremely cold, we here in New Brunswick are known to have warm hearts and a welcoming attitude towards people from other provinces and other countries, as we've just heard from His Honour Mr. Betts.

I'd like also to thank you for giving us the opportunity to express our views or give you feedback on an array of subjects that are really of significance to us as an organization that deals with grassroots issues.

I'd like to start with a brief introduction to the New Brunswick Multicultural Council and how it fits into the big picture with regard to PNP, the provincial nominee program, in New Brunswick. The NBMC was established in 1983. Its role is to be the provincial voice of multicultural and diversity issues in New Brunswick. It is the umbrella organization for local multicultural associations, groups, and individuals whose principles are in line with a number of values that also are the values of Canadian society, namely, the promotion and celebration of diversity, harmony, peace, human rights protection, and intercultural respect and understanding.

In 2002, NBMC was successful in establishing a productive partnership with the federal Department of Canadian Heritage and the New Brunswick Department of Training, Employment and Development, known as TED here, if we refer to it later on. Through this partnership, NBMC is focusing its efforts on setting the NGO strategic direction on matters related to immigration, diversity, and multiculturalism. Our plan includes strengthening existing associations throughout the province and developing new ones in areas where the need exists.

In my brief the focus will be the New Brunswick PNP from the NGO perspective. I will probably be touching on the business side, but I think the business side and the NGO perspective are intertwined and interrelated, and you cannot separate them for the success of the program.

The two overarching themes will be first that PNP's success will depend on the productive cooperation of various stakeholders, and secondly, the Multicultural Council and local associations and groups impact greatly on the success of PNP in New Brunswick. And we have to keep realities that are specific to New Brunswick and the New Brunswick culture in mind when we're dealing with the PNP.

PNP in New Brunswick, in our view, must be based on a fully integrated approach involving all stakeholders who all have equally important roles to play. These stakeholders are--and this list is not limited to them, there are others--the provincial departments involved in immigration and multiculturalism. The two sets are the federal and provincial departments that support programs that impact on creating a harmonious and supportive environment in the service delivery area, such as schools, hospitals, workplace, etc. I will elaborate later on that. The third set of stakeholders would be organizations like NBMC and other multicultural associations that provide the infrastructure and the support system to make the receiving communities welcoming, supportive, and encouraging. And finally, the receiving communities. We need the synergy between new arrivals and the receiving communities. It is my opinion and also the NBMC view that this component has not been addressed to the fullest extent that it needs to be. We really have to focus on this one in any program or policy development in the future.

Â (1210)

In this context we have the framework. We believe the full citizenship and cultural harmony development programs are critical to New Brunswick growth as a whole. Multicultural associations are positive contributors to creating an environment that can attract and retain immigrants in New Brunswick. Third, immigrants have a major role to play in the economic, demographic, social, and cultural growth of New Brunswick. We had an excellent presentation before me about the economic growth that can result and emerge from immigrants. We want to take it a couple of steps further because that's what we believe.

This leads us to the key conclusion. In addition to being about attracting people to New Brunswick, PNP must be about creating welcoming communities for individuals and families--and I highlight individuals and families. First, this will help them achieve their fullest potential for the benefit of New Brunswick, and second, to feel they belong and want to make New Brunswick their home.

It is incumbent, we believe, upon all stakeholders to make the necessary efforts to break off the trend of immigrants leaving for larger centres where there exists a strong support system and where they have better opportunities to prosper and flourish, not only professionally but more importantly--or equally importantly--socially and culturally.

From NBMC's point of view, meeting this challenge is pivotal to the success of PNP in New Brunswick. The province and Citizenship and Immigration Canada made a step in the right direction when they signed the agreement in 1999. That was to address the skills shortages in the province.

The drivers for such a program have been widely publicized in the media--locally, nationally, provincially, as well as regionally. I won't address that or delve into it. We know we have our own specific problems in New Brunswick related to low birth rate, aging population, low immigration attraction base, and a high exodus of people to bigger centres.

Yesterday I was reading a statement in the paper. It said “If New Brunswick wants to sustain levels of growth comparable to Ontario and Quebec, we must attract new immigrants.” We at NBMC recognize, and this is an important point for us, that the exodus to MTV--Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver--applies to both people born in New Brunswick and those born outside the province. It's a reality that we have to balance and face.

Today, obviously, we'll only be dealing with how we're going to attract and retain immigrants. We also need to find ways to leverage the maximum value of PNP to the benefit of New Brunswick, a province that does not have the same level of growth opportunities as most of the provinces and territories in Canada.

I'm just going to go over a few considerations that we thought of and would like to propose and put forth before this committee. Those proposals for consideration are related to that close cooperation that must exist between the stakeholders and organizations like NBMC and local multicultural associations and groups.

First, NBMC and local multicultural organizations can provide cultural understanding and context prior to officials travelling abroad to promote the program. There are some benefits of consulting from a cultural interpretation point of view, and that's where there could be room for improvement.

Two, NBMC and local multicultural organizations, through partnership with departments involved in the PNP, can provide valuable, well-developed expertise in assisting immigrants to settle in the communities, to integrate, and to gradually feel at home.

Three, NBMC and local multicultural community organizations can provide the long-term, enduring, and sustained support system that immigrants need to consider New Brunswick home.

Â (1215)

Four, NBMC and local multicultural organizations have the experience and the expertise to understand and meet the needs of the immigrants as they arrive.

Lastly, NBMC and other organizations are an integral part of their communities. This gives them the advantage and credibility to work with community groups and individuals to make them more welcoming and receptive to new arrivals.

Building on our strengths, we concur with the statement made by the Honourable Norman Betts, which was in yesterday's press release. He said PNP is “an excellent economic development tool”.

We also strongly recommend continued efforts to take an integrated approach to its implementation. While PNP is centred on business and entrepreneurial goals, it is critical that the needs of participants extend beyond employment and business. Social, spiritual, and cultural needs are often as important, if not more important, as employment and return on investment.

We in New Brunswick have a lot to offer potential immigrants. Our concerted efforts should be on coordinated cross-sectoral policy development and service delivery based on consultation and dialogue, before recruitment, upon arrival, and during settlement, such that advantages offered in New Brunswick outweigh by far the inconveniences and hardships encountered.

You have in the brief some more specific recommendations related to marketing New Brunswick abroad, to supporting diversity and education and awareness programs in the institutions, and to making a continued effort to eliminate the occupational barriers and red tape that exist that would prevent an easy transition to becoming an immigrant in New Brunswick.

This afternoon the Multicultural Association of Fredericton will address more specifically some of the issues in their brief, so I won't go over those.

In conclusion, I want to thank you for coming, and also, we endorse a proactive PNP in New Brunswick and encourage closer, transparent working relationships with various players, keeping the public good of all New Brunswickers at the centre of all our efforts and initiatives.

Thank you.

Â (1220)

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you very much, Christine.

I will remind the committee of a couple of things before we conclude with questioning.

We have to be checked out of the rooms before one o'clock, so I would suggest that we have about five minutes per person for questioning so that the staff can get a break. We're to be back here an hour from now, at 1:30, so we don't have a lot of time, and I apologize for that, but if the members would try five minutes each, I think that would give everyone a chance.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

You may have been here when I asked the minister about developing among the people of New Brunswick an awareness of the need for immigrants. My question is very simple. I live in an area with a high proportion of immigrants. I'm very close to the cultural communities and I can notice that in most multicultural organizations, there are very few deeply-rooted Quebeckers. I want to know if this is also the case here.

I found some organizations that attempted to integrate people from the communities, but it was always very superficial. It's as if people from cultural communities feel more at home within groups like yours. Is it any different in New Brunswick?

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: I have to say that in New Brunswick we're having a very unique experience because apart from the ethnic groups we have in our organizations and associations, there is also great interest from the community in being part of our groups. It's very nice to have an organization where you feel at home but now that we have been living in this country for many years, we have demonstrated our ability to integrate, to be part of the community and to play a constructive role. We now have a lot of credibility and that is starting to attract many deeply-rooted people.

The synergy Mr. Betts mentioned is actually present within our organizations. This is really something unique for us and we're very proud to have accomplished this and to have gone past this stage.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Great. You are truly a model.

Â (1225)

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Thank you, Madeleine.

Diane.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: Thank you for this good presentation. You were very clear about the advantages of a multi-operational approach to retention of immigrants. You particularly make the point—and I think it's important sometimes, at a political level, to make this point—that immigrants need not only bread and butter, but they need food for the soul: social acceptability, friendships, and comfort in things familiar.

My question for you is whether you have had an opportunity to discuss this with officials at the provincial level who are implementing the provincial nominee program. Could you give us some idea of whether any steps have been undertaken by provincial officials to work with you and other groups in implementing some of the ideas you have to make communities in New Brunswick welcoming for newcomers?

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: First I'd like to thank you for the comments you made to Mr. Betts. That very much endorses the objectives we are here for today.

Our organization—I should say organizations, because really it's an umbrella organization, but we also have the local multicultural groups—already had good relationships with the department that looks after the multicultural portfolio in New Brunswick.

I don't know if this has come out during the discussions or not, but here in New Brunswick we have at the provincial level three government departments that deal with the issues. We have BNB—Business New Brunswick— which deals with business immigration. We have Training and Employment Development, which deals with multiculturalism and multicultural policy. Then there is Intergovernmental Affairs, which is the department that also deals with relationships abroad.

You don't go to one place to deal with the issues. We have established, through the years, excellent relationships with.... Business New Brunswick is new to this. I think it has moved in only during the last year or so. We are trying to build the bridges. We are trying to talk and discuss. We have not reached the level we feel we need to. We know we still have some work to do.

We have undertaken the first step to meet with them, after having written to them, and we have received from their officials an indication that they will be more than willing and glad to sit with us. We still have to see where this is going to lead us. We still believe the success of BNB is the success of people, not only employment and cheque stubs.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy: This looks good. I guess it's a challenge, always, to deal with different perspectives and different emphasis. I commend you for doing this. I hope your efforts will see real success in having some very happy and very committed new citizens of New Brunswick.

Thank you.

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: I'd like to add something to this. I don't know if all of this has come up, but our organizations are based on volunteer work. For us to take part in something like this, some of us have to take a day off work--a vacation day--to be here to address a committee like this and to try to make a change. Our organizations are working on a bare minimum of resources. This is a consideration that's very important.

We know what role the volunteer sector plays in issues like this, but funding and resources are always a challenge. It's sometimes driven by personal commitment on the part of the people. They are committed to the cause and have had the experience to support it. Resources and funding have to count for some kind of will of some sort so that we are able to do this.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): John.

Mr. John Bryden: You were saying in your presentation the multicultural organizations can help immigrants to integrate and gradually to feel at home. Can you be specific? What programs are out there that are helping new immigrants feel at home in New Brunswick today?

Â (1230)

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: I think the presentation this afternoon is going to give the services that are provided. The services that are provided are funded by CIC, and we have to recognize that. However, the services go beyond English as a second language and settlement and resettlement. We provide the support system that becomes social. As well we become the referral source for everybody who needs to have any information about cultural interpretation. We bring the new arrivals to the community and we bring the community to the new arrivals.

Mr. John Bryden: Can you be specific? You are speaking in generalities. What outreach programs do you have? How do you reach the new immigrants and make them feel at home? Where's the human contact?

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: They are with us on a daily basis because they attend our classes. We invite them to our events, such as Christmas and Halloween events. We introduce them to the culture. These would be the specific Canadian cultural aspects that we introduce them to. At the same time we invite them home. They become friends. We are the bridge between the new environment and themselves.

Give me an example of being specific.

Mr. John Bryden: You're getting there.

Often one hears of intentions, but I think what is very important for us to know, so that we can share it across the country, is how multicultural councils such as yours and the attendant organizations actually deal with making people feel at home. Do they have collective suppers? You suggested there's a Halloween event.

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: That's all ongoing. If I had to go through the list, maybe you wouldn't have time for your lunch today. There is a presentation this afternoon that is going to touch on some of those issues. They include showing them how to get a doctor's appointment, how to get their social insurance number, and how to do banking business. These are specific to the daily needs of newcomers. But most important is when we match them with people in the community who take interest in their culture and their daily life.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman. How do you identify the new immigrants? Who gives you the information that a new immigrant has come into the community so that you can make contact?

Ms. Christine Nassrallah: There is the formal system and the informal system, and they both work equally well. The formal system is obviously through referrals from CIC, and another presentation will touch on that. As you know, in places such as Fredericton and Moncton the community is very small. If there is a newcomer family, you will hear about them by word of mouth, and you take the initiative to involve them in your daily activities.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to say that to explain to newcomers to Canada the Canadian Halloween certainly would be a challenge, and I congratulate you on trying it.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. Jerry Pickard): Christine, thank you very much. We do appreciate you coming in. Getting into more specifics about exactly what you're doing will be important for the committee this afternoon. But I think you have given us a good idea about what that is as well and some of the challenges you face. We're very appreciative that you've been able to take the time and come forward and present that information.

The meeting is adjourned.