CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 1, 2001

• 0839

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues. You're looking remarkably well for people who turned up at the hotel at 1 o'clock in the morning after a very busy day in Vancouver in British Columbia.

Welcome to Winnipeg in Manitoba. We have a very full day, this morning and this afternoon. It's a pleasure for the committee to be here in Winnipeg and Manitoba. We hear an awful lot about your Canada-Manitoba agreement, as well as the fine groups you have in this fine city and province that have been very involved in immigration and refugee issues for a number of years.

So I want to thank you in advance for taking the time and giving us your wisdom and experience as we go through the very important task of putting forward the next immigration and refugee law and bill in this country, which hopefully will serve the country, as the last one did, for 20 or 25 years. So welcome, and thank you for taking the time and interest and for doing some very fine work on behalf of Canadians.

• 0840

I believe you've tabled your submissions with the clerk. The committee has your submissions. We would ask that you take five to seven minutes to give us a summary of what those submissions are, giving us enough time obviously so that the committee can ask some questions of your brief and/or your suggestions, recommendations and your experiences. I would ask that you keep to those particular timeframes if you could so that we can have a constructive and positive exchange of ideas.

First off this morning we have Zaifman Associates; the Manitoba Bar Association, Immigration Section; the Coalition for a Fair and Just Immigration Policy; the Council of Canadians with Disabilities; and the Citizenship Council of Manitoba.

I believe, Ken Zaifman, you will be speaking on behalf of yourself, the Manitoba Bar Association, as well as the coalition.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman (President, Zaifman Associates): That's correct.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Ken. Welcome.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning.

We thought it would perhaps be simpler if all three interest groups made one presentation. Hopefully we won't have to use all our time and we can move on.

I want to raise several points. Some are points relating particularly to the proposed legislation and some are rather in a broader context. I want to make several specific recommendations on what is contained in the legislation with respect to family class sponsorships.

The act provides for a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident to sponsor their family members. It does not, in my view, include the fact that a group of Canadian citizens or permanent residents can sponsor a family class member. In other words, it does not permit joint sponsorships in the legislation. This was something that was in effect permitted not by regulation but by guidelines a number of years ago and was removed from the guidelines by the department. In effect it allowed siblings to co-sponsor their parents and sign the same kinds of undertakings so they would be jointly and severally liable for the sponsorship of their parents. This would broaden the financial responsibility for the sponsorship of parents. It does not expand the definition of the family class in terms of who is eligible to sponsor. It just enables siblings to co-sponsor.

If I had my way I would even go further than that. I would include a similar provision to the one that applies with sponsorships of refugees, where if a sponsor wishes to sponsor a member of the family class and can get a co-sponsor who may not be a sibling but who is prepared to be financially liable for the sponsorship of a member of the family class, that should be permitted.

The undertaking of assistance is a legal obligation. It's no different from going to the bank and getting a loan. It is that kind of process. I think by expanding in the law people who are eligible to sponsor you will broaden the base of people who can qualify, you will spread the burden of the financial obligation on families, and no one loses in those circumstances.

I'd also like to deal with the fact that the legislation talks about, in the objectives, prompt processing. There is no other provision in the legislation that I can see where the minister is required to report to the House about processing time. So we have an obligation for the minister to report on levels but no obligation on the minister to report on the processing time.

• 0845

Think about the implications. We know there is either a worldwide backlog or waiting list, however you choose to describe it. All the evidence is anecdotal; it varies from visa post to visa post, from country to country, and from time to time. But there's nothing in the legislation that requires the minister to report to Parliament about the nature of processing.

Prompt processing without a legislative mandate is a meaningless gesture. If Parliament cannot compel the minister to process promptly, then it doesn't really have any impact. Again, my preference would be, and it's a bit of a stretch, to put processing timeframes in the legislation. These would be guidelines the minister is obligated to meet, and he or she would have to report to Parliament on why they cannot meet those guidelines.

One of the biggest problems we have is the processing of applications, and unless we can deal with that in the legislative framework, it becomes an administrative remedy, which may or may not have equal application.

I want to add one final word about the family class. The definition of a dependant has been expanded from the existing law, but it does not go as far as it did under previous legislation, where a dependant, defined as someone who is single and unmarried, regardless of age, could be considered as a member of the family class. That did create certain anomalies where you had 46-year-old single dependants being admitted to Canada. But in my view, it is a more accurate reflection of the family class.

By tying dependency to school, it eliminates the ability to get work experience and to come back to school after a certain age. Think of your own family experiences. You're a reflection of Canadian society. Some dependants are independent. Some of your children may be dependent from an early age. Some of them go back to school, join the workforce, come back, and they may always be dependent on you, one way or the other. And yet we are trying to artificially create an age by which people should not be included as a family class. I think that's artificial and creates a lot of problems.

In my view, the definition of family class should be single, unmarried at the time of the application, regardless of age. It may increase the number of people who are eligible to be included in the family class and it may have some settlement issues related to it, but I think that is a very clear and unambiguous way to deal with the issue of dependency.

You've had many briefs from the Canadian Bar Association on issues related to leave applications, judicial review, the whole gamut of issues raised by this bill, and I don't intend to repeat that. You had it in Vancouver and you're going to get more of it in Toronto.

I want to step back for a moment and look at the legacy this bill is supposed to leave. The language of this bill does not create a framework for nation building. This bill was drafted by bureaucrats. I'm not saying they didn't do a good job, but there's nothing in this bill that you can look at and say, this is the legacy I want to leave for the next generation of immigrants. The only thing it's accomplished is that it has called permanent residents foreign nationals.

For the life of me, I cannot figure out why that terminology has been persistently and consistently maintained in the various versions of the legislation. This is maybe more of an issue of optics, but I find that designation puts a different flavour to the legislation. When you look at the objectives, what is it we want to accomplish with this piece of legislation? We have immense pressures in terms of people wanting to come to Canada, but the Immigration Act, when all is said and done, should be an exercise in nation building, not an exercise purely in determining who is eligible and who isn't eligible.

• 0850

It's very difficult for me to get a flavour of what this bill is to accomplish, because this bill will be looked at by other ministers and other Parliaments. So we have an opportunity to speak today of the future of this country.

We can look back at the experience we've had in building Canada, and in particular Manitoba, which was essentially built by immigrants who came to this country. Winnipeg and Manitoba are very unique in the Canadian context. We need and want more immigrants. The provincial government is committed to bringing in more immigrants. We have a Canada-Manitoba agreement to do that.

But there's nothing in this legislation that tells us where we want to go. If you read this and step back for a moment from the specific provisions, I think you'll share my view that the objectives of this bill are not strong enough. We do not speak from our historical perspective and of the accomplishments that immigration could bring.

That will not impact on how the bill will affect the selection of immigrants. A lot of this is done by regulation, and that's one of the difficulties.

The opportunity is here for you as members of Parliament to deal with these broader issues. I feel that's being missed in the discussion. We're getting focused on whether or not there should be a lead provision, an examination, or a right of appeal. Those are all very important things, but that's not the legacy that should be left with this committee. The legacy comes five or ten years from now, when some of you may be retired and you look back at working on this piece of legislation. What is it you want to accomplish? My sense is that the focus has always been on specific provisions, and no one has the time to consider what we really want to achieve and how to achieve it. You have that unique ability. The minister enforces and administers the act, but you write it.

I want to leave it at that—you're laughing.

The Chair: No. I just said “We wish”. We're going to try to write this bill.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: All right.

I want to to leave it at that because I know you have other presenters, who could perhaps address some questions to you. I know you have had a busy day. I wanted to make those specific points.

The Chair: Thank you, Kenneth.

With us from the Council of Canadians with Disabilities is Laurie Beachell, the national co-ordinator. Welcome.

Mr. Laurie Beachell (National Co-ordinator, Council of Canadians with Disabilities): Thank you for the opportunity to be here today.

The Council of Canadians with Disabilities is a national advocacy association comprised of people with disabilities. It represents people who have a visual impairment, a hearing impairment, or a mobility impairment, and people who have been labelled mentally handicapped or who define themselves as psychiatric survivors. We have eight provincial organizations and six other national organizations that are members. Basically, we monitor federal legislation and initiatives as they impact on people with disabilities. We've been around for 25 years. Our national office is based here in Winnipeg. The organization grew out of western Canada and became national in the early 1980s.

CCD has had a long interest in the Immigration Act and a long-time concern related to it. I'm going to speak to you today about a specific aspect of the act that is of concern to our organization, and that is the discrimination that exists within the act that can prohibit the immigration of individuals with disabilities to Canada.

There are amendments being put forward in the bill that would address this issue for family reunification and for refugees. These are the guidelines on excessive demand. Individuals can be determined not to be eligible for immigration based on an assessment that says they would create an excessive demand on the health care system or the social services system of Canada.

We have long brought this section of the act to the government's attention. There were changes in 1992 to the act. They were never proclaimed. The act remains.

We are presently before the Federal Court with a case called Chesters, where a women with MS was denied immigration to Canada. Her husband is a Canadian citizen. He was working in Britain. He came back to Canada to work here. She applied to immigrate to Canada. She was denied because she has multiple sclerosis and uses a wheelchair. They have since left Canada and gone to Germany for jobs there. She's a professor at a university and teaches full time, and she cannot immigrate to Canada.

• 0855

Our present law would prohibit someone like Stephen Hawking from becoming a Canadian citizen. Our present law discriminates on the basis of disability. Our present law has a stereotypical attitude toward people with disabilities that says they do not make a contribution to society and are a drain upon society. Our supreme law of Canada, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, prohibits discrimination based on physical or mental disability, yet the Immigration Act continues to discriminate on this basis. CCD has brought this to the attention of government on numerous occasions. We get a sympathetic hearing but little in the way of action.

We are pleased to see the amendment that removes the excessive demand clause in the case of family reunification and refugees, but it does not go far enough. It should be removed from anyone immigrating to Canada.

Our law seems to be based on an attitude that says those with disabilities are not contributors; they are just takers. It is based on an attitude that says people with disabilities will not make a contribution to our society and somehow their demand upon health care is something we cannot bear. It is illogical, in our view, to proceed this way when our charter prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.

Many of those who immigrate to Canada may put a demand on our health care or social services system because of a variety of medical reasons that are found later. A major business individual may require quadruple bypass surgery within five months or five years.

What is an excessive demand? How do you determine this? What education or training is given to people in the field to ensure that the traditional stereotypical attitudes are not what determine who can or cannot come to Canada?

We've heard stories for years from the Mennonite Central Committee and others that in the case of refugees in particular, family members have had to decide whether or not they would leave people behind. We've heard stories of family members choosing to end the life of an individual so that the rest of the family could come to Canada. Those situations are drastic and severe. We think that as a country, this is something we should not be forcing upon individuals.

I would like to read you one excerpt from the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act “Issue Paper 4”, which talks about the change in the bill that would remove the excessive demand from refugees and family reunification. It goes on to say at the end:

The financial impact on the provinces and territories from these excessive demand exemptions is expected to be relatively small. Persons who are exempt from excessive demand criteria will continue to be evaluated against public health and public safety criteria.

If the demands are going to be small for family reunification and for refugees, why would we continue to keep the prohibition in place for other people? Why would we continue to disallow people such as Stephen Hawking from immigrating to Canada?

The amendment is a positive one, but it does not go far enough. CCD is seeking intervenor status before the Federal Court in the Chesters case. I've brought a couple of newspaper articles to share with you that basically describe the Chesters case, which will likely go to the Federal Court this fall.

That in essence is the basis of our concern. We believe the act discriminates. It is based on stereotypical attitudes towards people with disabilities that do not fit with our current laws in Canada, and we would encourage that the amendments go further than they do.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Laurie.

We have with us from the Citizenship Council of Manitoba, Janis Nickel. Welcome, Janis.

Ms. Janis Nickel (Citizenship Council of Manitoba): Thank you.

I'm a front-line worker at the International Centre. I deal primarily with refugee claimants, but also with other people in some state of immigration distress. I listen to the horror stories that cause people to flee their countries and to seek refuge in Canada, and I advocate on their behalf in many ways.

• 0900

Generally I fear that the proposed bill is potentially a legal nightmare for individuals seeking protection. I'm not sure how the claimants are going to find their way through this maze of eligibility, refugee claim, pre-removal risk decision, stays of removal, Federal Court applications, and so on. I'm not a lawyer, so this is not to my advantage, and it's going to be very difficult for my clients.

I'd like to limit myself, however, to a few points.

First, I'd like to address subclause 30(2), which reads:

(2) A minor child in Canada, other than a child of a temporary resident not authorized to work or study, is authorized to study at the pre-school, primary or secondary level.

There are many cases in which a temporary resident—that is, refugee claimants and others—may not be authorized to work or study in Canada. If, for example, the parent has a medical problem or is under a non-executable removal order, he or she will not be issued a work authorization, and thus the child can be denied access to education.

The bill also mentions the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which, in this case, reads:

State parties recognize the right of the child to education and...shall, in particular, make primary education compulsory and available free to all.

In Manitoba and in other provinces, school is indeed compulsory from the age of seven. It is, in reality, an offence to keep a child out of school, which the federal government is doing. Even our Canadian Constitution states that education is a provincial matter, and the province should be deciding whether or not children can go to school, and not the federal government. Thus I would like to see “other than a child of a temporary resident” removed from the bill.

Secondly, I'd like to address the eligibility issue.

Subclause 101(1) reads:

101.(1) A claim is ineligible to be referred to the Refugee Protection Division if

(b) a claim for refugee protection by the claimant has been rejected by the Board;

Since I am a listener to stories, I am going to tell you a story to illustrate how this can be particularly damaging for women. This is an example from my case files.

A man, a wife, and a child came to Canada to make a refugee claim for reason of persecution of the male claimant for political reasons. The claim was heard in one of the larger cities. The claimant had contacted a lawyer from his own cultural group—a male lawyer, I might add—who had his own political agenda. The claim was rejected, and after all appeals were exhausted, they were deported to the U.S., from where they had entered Canada.

They returned in 90 days, this time to Winnipeg, and initiated another claim. There was little new information. After the claim was filed, the female claimant came to see me—alone. By now, with her time in Canada and the U.S., she had learned English. With difficulty, she confided in me that the reason her husband had been targeted by a particular military figure was that the man desired her. Her rejection of him and subsequent marriage to the claimant had infuriated him. His advances to her had been culturally inappropriate, and she had not dared to tell her present husband. After he had her husband arrested, the military man came to their home with his colleagues and gang-raped the woman.

Her situation was further complicated by the fact that the rapist had by now spread the word that he had violated her, and even her in-laws knew that she was a dishonoured woman. She was now intercepting all mail from her in-laws and lived in a state of perpetual fear.

I listened to her, and I counselled her to present her story to the refugee board. I still remember her words, “If I tell my husband what they did to me he will leave me, and then what will I do in this strange country with my children?”

I consulted their lawyer, this time a competent one, who suggested we sever the claims. Thus she was able to tell her story. The family was subsequently recognized as convention refugees—and I don't know if she ever told her husband.

• 0905

Under Bill C-11, this woman would not have been eligible to have her claim referred to the refugee board. They would have had to stay in the U.S. for six months instead of three, and this might not have even been possible.

If they were able to return, they may have tried to access the pre-removal risk assessment, but paragraph 113(a) states:

(a) an applicant whose claim to refugee protection has been rejected may present only new evidence that arose after, or was not reasonably available at the time, of the rejection;

The female claimant's evidence did not arise after the rejection and was readily available at the time. Thus the woman would have been sent back to her country, to the man who had violated her, who was still in a position to persecute both her and her husband. On the other hand, she could likely have been deserted by her husband or killed by her in-laws.

Perhaps some good legal argument may have allowed them access to risk review by a delegate of the minister. I've had considerable experience with humanitarian and compassionate applications, which are assessed by representatives of the minister from the Department of Immigration, who, with few exceptions, are neither humanitarian nor compassionate, and also with post-claims determination officers, who reject approximately 98% of all cases. I would hold little hope for a positive outcome from these decision-makers.

In addition, clause 114 states that for those who are recognized under risk assessment, a decision to allow the application for protection in effect confers refugee protection. If it has the same effect, I'm not sure why we need a body to effect this determination when the refugee board is much more competent to do so than, as I said, the representatives of the minister.

I propose that all refugee claimants should be eligible and that any questions on eligibility should be assessed by the refugee board.

A third, short point is on the question of enforcement. Section 117 reads:

117.(1) No person shall knowingly organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons who are not in possession of a visa, passport or other document required by this Act.

This is followed by a list of penalties, which can be up to ten years in prison or $500,000, or both.

Our agency routinely communicates with individuals and works with agencies that are in the U.S. or other countries to organize the arrival of refugee claimants at the border. We even send vehicles to pick them up. Am I going to be arrested for doing my job, or fined $500,000?

I would strongly suggest that those acting in non-profit humanitarian organizations or for humanitarian reasons not be included under this section.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Janis.

Thank you all for your excellent submissions and thought-provoking questions to us and for your suggestions.

This committee is very fortunate to have three members of Parliament from Manitoba, from all sides of the House. We're very pleased to have Inky, Judy, and Anita as part of our committee. They've done some very fine work on behalf of Canada and on behalf of your province.

We're going to go to questions, and we'll start with Inky for a five-minute round.

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to all our witnesses. Thank you for taking time out to be here this morning.

The chairman is very correct in terms of members of Parliament in this whole province, so we're very balanced—and very fortunate on the multicultural side in this province as well, beginning with the French and the Métis settlement, as well as all the European settlers who arrived here. In fact, I'm very fortunate to come from a community, a riding, that celebrates Canada's National Ukrainian Festival, if I can make a plug for the folks at home.

• 0910

I agree that our past history is a reflection of the immigration policies of this country. There's no doubt that our future will be enriched, and also moulded, by how the country perceives immigration and the policy it puts in place.

I guess the secret to making sure we attract the right kind of people to this country is to balance security issues versus an open-door policy. Perhaps the media emphasis on the negative stories has created some of this pressure, and perhaps some of the writing in the bill as well. I know there are parts, as you mention, in which the tone may perhaps be negative—such as the way it occasionally refers to permanent residents as foreign nationals.

But the government's target is 1% of the population. I must say, I wonder whether that target will ever be reached with this kind of legislation. My question is, if you were to characterize this bill, would you deem it to be pro-immigration or anti-immigration? I'd like to hear your comments.

The Chair: We'll start with you, Ken.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: The bill is a blueprint, so it's difficult to characterize it as pro- or anti-immigration. The question is, will it deliver on the objectives set out in the legislation?

There are two parts to it. There is the enforcement provision, and a lot of emphasis has been placed on that. Whether the emphasis has been misplaced or not is obviously subject to debate. My view is that the emphasis on enforcement has not been matched by the emphasis on selection. I think I would prefer to look at the selection side of the legislation: how we can improve on that to achieve the objectives.

But with anything, you have to know what the objective is. If the objective is to select a group of immigrants consisting of family class, skilled workers, business, and refugees, I don't think this bill is clear in enunciating those objectives. We have always shied away from one of the most difficult words in immigration law, which is “quota”.

We have guidelines, we have objectives, we have every conceivable linguistic description of what, in effect, we may characterize as a quota system—although that's not what we have, and we shouldn't have it. But the issue becomes, if you want to achieve a goal of 1%, within what period of time do you do it? I think this bill could perhaps be clearer in stating those objectives.

For example, if we want to bring in family class members, if we want to make that determination an easier one, then I say we should eliminate some of the barriers to inclusion in family class. That goes back to my suggestion about the definition of a dependant. If you want to encourage skilled workers to come to Canada, you've got to build a legislative framework that allows them to be processed quickly.

When people make economic decisions, they're not going to wait two or three years. This bill does not address that. To me, a bill should not only set objectives in terms of the kinds of people you want to select, but for processing times. That will necessitate the minister going to Treasury Board and getting the resources allocated.

If we want to eliminate the current backlog or waiting list, this bill will not do that. In fact, the consensus is that this will increase the waiting list—because the system we have now is not a selection system, it's an exclusion system. Immigrants are not selected for admission, they're excluded from it. The very nature of an open occupation list is that if you're not on that list, you're excluded.

One of the benefits of that is to make the determination process somewhat easier. If you eliminate that and actually start to select people—which I think is the more appropriate way to deal with it—you've got to devote resources to the selection.

So the specific answer to your question is, the bill itself does not really address the issue of negative or positive. A lot of that will come with the regulations. But it's a question of the objective. I believe in accountability.

• 0915

The Chair: Thank you, Ken.

Laurie and Janis.

Mr. Laurie Beachell: I can only speak to one specific point. I would say that this bill moves in the direction of removing some of the discriminatory practices for people with disabilities, but it does not go far enough.

It only removes discrimination for some people. Others will continue to face discrimination either overseas or when they get to Canada. What happens for many individuals, frankly, is that they arrive in Canada and are denied immigration status. Only if a case becomes visible enough is a ministerial permit granted.

We actually believe that ministerial permits are an abuse of power and are a way of evading having to amend the law to bring it in line with the charter. Those people who are able to give their cases a high enough profile get a ministerial permit. But that requires community organizations, media, etc. We would rather see the discrimination within the act removed.

The Chair: Janis.

Ms. Janis Nickel: I can only comment on the part of the bill that relates to refugee claimants.

First of all, I see it's going to be increasingly difficult for them to even get into Canada. The emphasis is on criminalizing claimants and excluding them from the refugee protection system. I also mentioned the legal maze they have to go through when they get here.

A few parts of the refugee determination system are an improvement on the old system, but only for the few people who can actually access it. I believe that between 36,000 and 40,000 refugee claimants come to Canada every year. So it's going to be quite a legal nightmare for people like myself.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

The Chair: It's nice to be here in Winnipeg.

Ms. Anita Neville: Glad to hear that.

Thank you all for your presentations here this morning.

Mr. Zaifman, you and I have spoken about the bill at length before this. I'm familiar with the work of the other organizations. What you're doing certainly makes a significant contribution to this community.

I'm struck by your comments about the bill's lack of vision. As you were speaking, I went back and read clause 3 in terms of how the bill's vision could be enhanced. I indicated yesterday that in paragraph 3(1)(b) I wanted to include the word “multicultural” as well as “federal and bilingual”. But that certainly doesn't go as far as you would like it to.

I'd be interested in hearing what you would like to see there. I'd also like to know a bit more about the idea of joint sponsorship—several family members or groups bringing in families or refugees.

Could you expand on that for the committee?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Let me deal with the second issue first.

Currently, sponsorship is initiated by an “undertaking of assistance”, a document Canadian citizens or permanent residents must sign to sponsor family members. They must meet a rather rigorous financial requirement. I'm not going into whether that's appropriate or not at this time.

If they meet those financial obligations, they can sponsor members of the family class. But only an individual son or daughter can sponsor parents.

There used to be a provision we called joint sponsorship, where a brother and a sister, or two siblings, could jointly sponsor their family. Both of them completed undertakings of assistance. This was an administrative procedure; it wasn't in the regulations at that time.

But there was a change and that was eliminated; they changed the immigration regulations with respect to sponsorships. I could never quite understand why they did that.

• 0920

So looking at this legislation, my view was that siblings should be allowed by law to do joint sponsorships. When you think about it, it only makes sense. They're all financially liable. It's no different from any other undertaking. If someone wants to purchase a house and doesn't have enough money, the loan can be co-signed. It doesn't necessarily have to be a sibling. This is really an issue of financial obligation too. I think we should try to broaden the basis on which people can sponsor their family class, while maintaining what I think is a very important point: that sponsorship comes with an obligation.

When you broaden the obligation and broaden the ability of people to qualify—well, I hate to trample on Mr. McCallum's experience, but you broaden the risk. The more people you can get to sign on for a project, the likelier it is that if one individual can no longer meet the sponsorship requirements, for whatever reason, someone else can pick up the obligation.

I don't believe the Department of Immigration should be in the sponsorship business at all. I believe that if people want to sponsor someone, they should be able to go to a financial institution and sign an undertaking—which would be no different from any other undertaking for a financial transaction. When you think about it, that's what an undertaking of assistance is; it's a financial obligation, an obligation to support parents.

If Canadian citizens or permanent residents can get someone else to sponsor jointly with them who's prepared to be liable if there's any breakdown in the sponsorship—I would consider that very similar to a group sponsorship for refugees. That's built into the legislation now, so why should sponsored family class applicants be at a disadvantage compared to sponsored refugees? When you think about it, it's the same fundamental point.

Now, the first question you asked is much harder. As I said, legislation is really a blueprint. But reading this, I don't get a sense of its objectives, of the strength and importance of immigration in our country's development. I see this bill as a very technical response to current events, which in many ways it should be.

Immigration is a cornerstone of this country, but that is not reflected in this legislation. The past and future contributions of immigrants to this country's development are not reflected.

If I were to draft what the objectives were, I would say very clearly that the objective is not just of this act, it's the purpose of immigration. It's a visceral feeling, and we know it.

Line 1 states that this is “An Act respecting immigration to Canada and granting of refugee protection”. I would then go on to say “the importance”. I would make very clear the fundamental importance of immigration to this country. It's not just respecting immigration, it's respecting nation building. I don't think we should be afraid to say that.

I also don't think we should be afraid to incorporate what we know, what our own experience tells us. Anyone looking back at this legislation may get a different view of what was intended by it.

As I say, people will quibble over particular points, but it's very hard to quibble about a broad vision. With a little time, and maybe a good bottle of wine, I could draft something myself.

The Chair: If you want to start doing that this weekend, that would be very nice, Ken.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Well, I think the bar opens at this hotel in about a half an hour, so maybe I'll start on it.

The Chair: We're going to be working really hard between now and Friday, listening to many people throughout the country. So far, you've reflected what an awful lot of people have said. As to whether or not it's reflected in the bill, obviously, that's our job.

I'm going to go to another good member from Manitoba, Judy.

• 0925

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to Winnipeg. I don't know if you've been told this, especially having left Vancouver, but this is the multicultural capital of the country. I don't think Toronto or Vancouver, despite their population, can actually claim to have such diversity and a history of respect for differences in our society. So welcome.

The Chair: Thank you.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I want to ask three questions of each of the presenters—I know, in five minutes or less.

The Chair: Three each?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: No, one each.

The Chair: Oh, okay.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The first is—

The Chair: On the answers, Ken, you should understand, the members get five minutes to ask the question and to have an answer. Your answers are very substantive, very good, but they're long.

Go ahead.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The first question is to Ken. I think he has raised an important issue here that we've heard time and again throughout the hearings around this bill. What is the intention of the bill? Is it to present a vision of the future for this nation, or is it about protecting Canada from worrisome elements around the world?

Many have said that the balance of this bill is in favour of protection, protecting Canada from the world, as opposed to keeping in line with our traditions as a country, of opening our doors to people in need and reuniting families.

I wouldn't mind a further comment on that, but my specific question is—and this has been suggested before by others—under the issue of sponsorship, why don't we go to a system where, never mind just relatives or family members, we allow for any relative or any friend, if they meet the requirements under the legislation, to be sponsored? It puts the onus on the individual to provide the financial assurances and to meet the obligations under the act. Is there a downside to moving in that direction?

I'm going to ask all my questions quickly, and maybe the chair will be kind enough to extend this a couple of minutes.

To Laurie, the question of medical demands or excessive demand on the system has been raised many times at committee, and there are real concerns about the way it's drafted and the fact that it's open to some subjective rulings.

There have been two different suggestions to amend that section. One has been to simply state that refugees will be exempt from inadmissibility on the basis of excessive medical demands. Another suggestion is that we add to paragraph 38(1)(c) words like “take into account all the circumstances of the individual's situation and their contribution”. So I need some advice on an amendment.

Janis has worked very hard on the front lines, and she is one of the examples that had caused me to raise the question earlier in hearings in Ottawa around the protection afforded under this law for people who take risks in helping refugees come into this country. I still haven't had an answer from government or officials from the department on this matter. I think we need to know if people like Janis are protected if they help refugees come into this country. So I'd like to ask for a specific suggestion from Janis on an amendment.

I think you've said we should amend clause 117. Could you give a clarification for me on that clause so that we can actually look at a specific amendment? Tell me why the department has indicated to us that people like you shouldn't have to worry, that it won't affect you but is really just to get at those people who are using the system illegally to come into this country and aren't genuine refugees.

The Chair: Thank you. Let's start with Janis on the third question.

Ms. Janis Nickel: Why don't we start with another one? I need to look something up—or do you want to wait for me to find it?

The Chair: It's not a problem.

Laurie, what about the excessive demand?

Mr. Laurie Beachell: As I mentioned, the changes for refugees and for family reunification are positive initiatives, but simply do not go far enough. We also believe that while the act may talk about taking into account other circumstances of the individual, the negative stereotype of disability is so pervasive that unless we put into effect clear statements by which we ensure that immigration officials in other countries are not operating under old biases, that the medical handbook is used and that with the training people receive they do not continue to perceive people as non-contributors....

• 0930

I'm afraid that stereotypes exist in our society significantly still. Over half of the complaints to human rights commissions across this country are still on discrimination on the basis of disability. Half the complainants among the existing citizens of Canada still face daily discrimination within our society even though the law prohibits that.

So we believe the negative stereotype is very pervasive, that unless there are very positive initiatives, not just general phrasing or wording that all circumstances will be taken into account, but that we actually put in place training programs for officials who are immigration officials, that we actually have vision statements that say people with disabilities are contributors, do make a contribution, etc.....

Much of the attitude we have continues to exist in our own society. We face it daily in the institutionalization of people with disabilities. We face it in exclusion from the workforce. We face it in exclusion from our transportation systems across Canada.

Things have changed in Canada. There are improvements. Canada is seen as a leader on disability policy, but that leadership is slipping. Frankly, in terms of that leadership, many Canadians with disabilities, when we look at the act, feel that somehow we are lesser citizens because the act prohibits us from.... If we weren't born here, we wouldn't be able to come here. So current citizens in Canada are devalued just by the wording of the act as well, because that act continues to provide a devaluation of people with disabilities.

The Chair: Thank you, Laurie. We'll go to Ken on the additional question on sponsorship.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: With your admonition in mind, there is no downside. The only impact in my view would be that a number of members of the family class eligible for admission would increase. If you increase the ability of people to sponsor, you probably increase the members of the family class. In my view it increases the accountability for people to sponsor and it broadens the base of those who are prepared to assist people in sponsoring their family class.

Again, this is a financial undertaking. It has very little to do with the immigration act at all. And if you view it in that light, you can put it in a different category, and I see no downside to it at all.

The Chair: Thank you.

Janis.

Ms. Janis Nickel: The clause I quoted was 117, and there's another one, 118, which reads that:

118.(1) No person shall knowingly organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, deception or use of threats of force or coercion.

And one could add, “for financial gain”.

Clause 118 is quite adequate there, and 117 could actually be eliminated.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The recommendation was to delete clause 117?

Ms. Janis Nickel: Or replace it with something similar to clause 118, which stipulates the means of bringing people in for.... We're talking about traffickers, and individuals or organizations who assist refugees should not be covered under this. I'll leave the wording.

Very briefly, you also mentioned why we should not be criminalized for this. I recently worked with the INS to bring a claimant to Canada, a ten-year-old child who had been incarcerated in the U.S. for three months for being a refugee claimant. I facilitated his arrival in Canada, finally.

The Chair: Thank you.

Yolande, one question.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): I'd like to start by commenting on sponsorship. You brought up an extremely important point, sir. Nevertheless, I'm somewhat surprised because people regularly come and see me at my office about this. This happens regularly in Quebec.

• 0935

I think that in this particular instance, it's a regulatory matter that comes under provincial rather than federal jurisdiction. As you know, each province has concluded agreements with the federal government, and each agreement contains different provisions. I suggest you look into this further. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Go ahead, Ken.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I think the point you make is a good one, but I think Quebec actually has a slightly different immigration agreement. Sponsorship of permanent residents falls within the federal jurisdiction. Provincial jurisdiction relates to the provincial nominee program, which is not a sponsorship program but assists in the selection of skilled or business immigrants to Manitoba. So it's slightly different. I think Quebec has its own particular framework.

[Translation]

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I know for a fact that this happens regularly in Quebec. That's why I asked myself this question.

[English]

The Chair: You may want to ask the administration. You should understand that the provincial nominee agreements do in fact vary across the country. The Manitoba one is a little different from the Quebec one, and a little different from the British Columbia one. I think it gets back to Ken's statement: what should the vision be as espoused by the federal government, and then the provincial governments fall within that framework of how we can collectively achieve what it is we want to do.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

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

Most of the points you raised in your presentation were also mentioned by many of our witnesses. Pursuant to the legislation, social assistance recipients cannot sponsor people. Might co-sponsorship be one way of to facilitate family reunification in the case of individuals with limited financial means? As I see it, sponsorship implies economic support as well as psychosocial support which I feel is equally important to the process of integrating new arrivals into this country.

Mr. Beachell, I listened very closely to your presentation. I agree that discrimination is unacceptable, particularly as we are all on our way to becoming disabled. I agree that persons with disabilities are not a burden on society. They allow us to focus on our own value system, and that's a fundamental society requirement.

I want to thank you for your presentation, as I do not recall hearing anything similar about this subject. I think we will be giving your recommendations some serious consideration.

Ms. Janis, were you in fact serious when you said that some children are deprived of the right to attend primary and secondary school because their parents are in limbo? If that's true, then I'm flabbergasted and surely I'm not alone in feeling this way.

[English]

The Chair: Let's start, Ken, with the social assistance and sponsorship question.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Sponsorship involves several factors. It does involve the reception of the immigrant to Canada and the obligation on the family to provide what I call non-financial kinds of assistance. But the precursor to this is that they have to meet the low-income cut-off to sponsor. So if we can allow the family to broaden that base they can concentrate on really what is critical, the integration of the family into society. But you have to get them here to do that, and until you can get them here, you can't do that. Co-sponsorship and expanding the ability of people to sponsor will facilitate that.

• 0940

The Chair: Janis, could you respond with regard to the question of schooling.

Ms. Janis Nickel: Yes, this does indeed happen. Currently all children of refugee claimants must hold a student authorization, which has to be applied for. It can take anywhere from three to six months from the time a family enters Canada until it's even possible to apply for one.

The proposed bill is supposed to amend this by saying that all children have the right to go to school. However, the exception clause in there, again, leaves out children of refugee claimants, and they could be denied access to education for considerable periods of time.

The Chair: Thank you.

Two final questions, John and John. John Herron, please.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): You flagged the potential concern over groups that, in bringing in refugees for humanitarian purposes, may be successful in actually saving individuals from harm, and I'd like to illustrate one example. I think one example might be Ambassador Taylor, who brought in Americans after the fall of the Shah in Iran. Was Ambassador Taylor out of line in that particular circumstance under this law? It might be an extreme example, but that particular thing came to mind.

I think you flagged a very relevant point. We want to thank you for your recommendation there.

Something did concern me from Ms. Nickel's presentation.... If you read the bill through, one would hope that when we get to a situation such as that in the rather moving example you utilized, it's at that point humanitarian and compassionate applications should come into play. But you really don't have a lot of faith in that particular avenue. Should we have it at all, or should we just replace that kind of avenue with a more broad appeal through the IRB?

Ms. Janis Nickel: It has been my experience and it is my opinion that the Immigration and Refugee Board is better able to deal with humanitarian applications than is the Department of Immigration.

The bill is not clear about who is going to be making these sorts of post-determination, risk review decisions. It appears that the Department of Immigration may have another panel similar to the refugee board, which appears to be a duplication. It isn't clear, but my experience with the Department of Immigration making humanitarian and compassionate decisions is that they are generally negative decisions.

The Chair: I'm sorry, John. Thank you.

The legislation is clear, PRA will be under the jurisdiction of Immigration, not IRB. We've heard those comments before, and that's what we're listening to and taking into consideration. I think the intent of the legislation is that pre-risk assessment is to be done by the Department of Immigration and not the IRB.

Final question, Mr. McCallum.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I generally agree with much that I've heard. I don't think refugee children should be kept out of school. A similar thing came up yesterday concerning the accessibility of Canada's student loans. It's a similar issue when they're a little bit older.

I don't like the term “foreign national”. If one could strengthen the objectives of the act, great. My one simple question is I also agree with the point that the minister should report on processing time, because that is critical. I would ask you how that could be effected. Would one amend the act or would one put it in regulations? How would one achieve that?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I think it should be in the act because there is an obligation on the minister to report on the levels. She has to report on the issuance of minister's permits.

• 0945

There's a provision that as part of the report to the House she should include a survey of processing times for applications for all categories, and not just globally but by visa office, by country, and by class, so that at least one can determine how long it's taking to process applications. The way you get that information now is anecdotally and by asking the program manager in the visa office how long it takes to process an application for permanent residence. They tell you that in Manila it's 24 months and in Hong Kong it's 36 months. There should be reports so that you can determine whether in fact the objective of the act, which is prompt processing, is being achieved. I think it's a reporting requirement that could be put into the legislation. It should be in the act, not in the regulations, and there should be an obligation on the minister to report.

The Chair: Thank you, Ken, Laurie, and Janis, for your submissions, your ideas, and your recommendations. I think you've touched us with a call for a vision, some equality, and some introspection as to exactly what this bill should be all about. Thank you very much for your interventions.

We're going to move quickly to our second panel of witnesses: the Business Council of Manitoba, Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, the Canadian Bar Association, the National Indo-Canadian Council, and the Winnipeg Refugee Education Committee. Would you all come to the table, please.

I want to welcome our second group of witnesses to the committee. I know that one organization has more than one representative, but I would ask that one person from each organization speak for between five and seven minutes and give us an overview of your submission. That will give enough time for the members to ask some questions. We appreciate your efforts to be here to give us your input on this important piece of legislation.

We'll start with the Business Council of Manitoba, whose representatives are Jim Carr and Arthur Mauro. Who will be speaking?

Mr. Jim Carr (President and Chief Executive Officer, Business Council of Manitoba): I will, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Welcome, Jim.

Mr. Jim Carr: Thank you very much.

First I'd like to introduce my colleague Dr. Arthur Mauro, a leading citizen of Manitoba, chancellor of the University of Manitoba, and a former president and chief executive officer of Investors Group. He's a very distinguished Canadian, who has led the efforts of the Business Council on the immigration file.

Let me also say a quick hello to Judy Wasylycia-Leis with whom I shared a bench in the Manitoba legislature for a number of years. Hi, Judy. We weren't on the same side on some issues, but we maintained a close friendship throughout. I'd also like to say hello to my own member of Parliament, Anita Neville, from Winnipeg South Centre.

Mr. Chairman, welcome to Manitoba.

• 0950

The Business Council of Manitoba consists of 55 chief executive officers from Manitoba's leading companies. It's just over three years old. Our first order of business was to determine which issues were most important to business leadership. It didn't take long to achieve a consensus that immigration was a leading priority.

You may have noticed that immigrants are not flocking from Kelowna and the Okanagan to Manitoba. They ought to, but they haven't figured that out yet. Our birth rate is not so rapid that we're able to replace ourselves. Traditionally, we believe we have peopled the prairie from every corner of the globe. Because we believe that was our past, we know it is also our future.

So we're left with a daunting challenge: to write national immigration policy that factors in wildly different regional interests. We know there are areas in Canada with already established communities to which immigrants are drawn like magnets. They go in huge numbers to Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.

We believe that Manitoba also offers a welcoming environment to new Canadians. That has been our tradition, and we have established a diversity and tolerance in the prairie soil that's unlike any other jurisdiction on the continent.

That's not just my opinion. As part of our work, the Business Council co-sponsored a conference, along with the Canada West Foundation and the Council on Canadian Unity. The Pioneers 2000 Conference on Immigration Policy was held in Winnipeg just about a year ago. As part of the advance research and documentation for this group of international, national, and local experts from the public and the private sectors, we commissioned a public opinion poll from the Ipsos-Reid Group.

The results were fascinating. Throughout North America, attitudes towards immigration, ethnic diversity, and tolerance, were much more positive than anyone would have expected. What should come as no surprise to Judy and Anita was that the most tolerant region in all North America was Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Of course that was music to our ears—because when you have a profoundly anecdotal viewpoint, it's good to know that data and research support what you believe to be true.

So we've set about the business of trying to figure out the best way to accommodate Manitoba's thirst for immigration within the context of a national immigration policy.

First of all, we want to recognize that the government's established goal of 1% of population is to us a minimum. On the basis of a population of 30 million people, that would be an immigration total of 300,000 every year. We have not come anywhere near that total. Why not?

The answer is that we are bogged down in a bureaucratic morass. The bottleneck is constricted in posts abroad, and the department has been starved. And when you starve the immigration department, you starve the nation itself—of its potential, of its people, of its human capital. But if you feed the department, then you nourish and build the nation.

We see immigration as the lifeblood of our future. It is the sustenance and the very nutrient of the national fabric. We have to see that as the only way for us to combat a growing international competition for people.

There are 250 million people in the world today who do not live in the country of their birth. There is increasing competition for the best and brightest skilled workers. They can go to Australia, they can go to the United States, they can go to western Europe. Those countries' policies are more progressive than ours, because they have come to understand that this pool of human capital will sustain economic growth.

If you were to ask an assortment of chief executive officers of Manitoba's companies what hinders the potential for economic growth in this province, they would say the lack of a skilled workforce. We are not going to develop our potential unless we have the people to stock the workplace. These people will come from the same places they traditionally have.

So what do we suggest? You'll excuse us for not being precise about the sections of the bill. We're far more interested in giving you the philosophical perspective of a business leadership group in Manitoba and the perspective of a province that welcomes immigrants and wants more.

We think the Canada-Manitoba immigration agreement ought to be renegotiated and that the provincial nominee class ought to be significantly expanded. Manitoba only receives approximately 2% of the immigration flow to Canada, but we represent 3.6% or 3.7% of the nation's population. To us, this is a distortion.

We would like to have at least our equivalent of the national population, which would mean doubling the immigration total to approximately 10,000 people a year.

• 0955

We think it's possible for the Government of Canada to cede jurisdiction to the Province of Manitoba without letting go of the integrity of the system. The Government of Canada should maintain control over the health checks, over criminality, over the suitability of individuals to come to Canada, but the Government of Manitoba, in cooperation with employer groups, NGOs, and those who settle new people, should go and recruit internationally to Manitoba as a place that welcomes immigrants.

Our theory, Mr. Chairman, is that if there is a skill set that makes an individual likely to succeed and an embracing community to welcome them when they arrive, they will stay here. We have evidence that under the provincial nominee program where people have taken root in communities where they are embraced and where there are jobs waiting for them, they do stay and will continue to stay. We want more, and we want a diversity that reflects the diversity of our culture and our community.

I don't know if I'm at five minutes or not, but you have the thrust of our philosophy. We want to look at creative ways of giving incentives to people who come to Canada to come to Manitoba where there are jobs. We have the lowest unemployment rate in the country. We have a tolerant and progressive attitude towards diversity. We want more, and we want your help to get more.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: You've sold me; I'm coming. Very good presentation, Jim.

We'll now go to Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface, and we have Paul Ruest.

[Translation]

Mr. Paul Ruest (Rector, Collège universitaire de Saint- Boniface): Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share with you our views on immigration. I've given a copy of our brief to Mr. Lahaie and to the interpreters as well to facilitate matters for them. I know their job isn't always easy.

My presentation will focus on one aspect of immigration. This is not to say that other components are less important, but we wanted to focus on one issue in particular, namely international students in Canada.

Collège Saint-Boniface is a French-language institution in Manitoba. Our mission is to provide Manitoba's Francophones, as well as any one else who wants it, with a post-secondary education in French.

Our college is recognized by provincial authorities and by employers as a provincial facility that trains bilingual workers.

All of our graduates are bilingual and many even speak a third language, often Spanish, a rare commodity in Manitoba.

We do not produce enough graduates to fill all of the positions in Manitoba that call for a knowledge of Canada's two official languages.

Currently, we have trouble recruiting enough students in Manitoba for our business administration, health, education and new technologies programs and we cannot satisfy the demand for French language services in these fields.

For example, we are anticipating in the short term a serious shortage of teachers for Francophone schools and French immersion programs in the province. This shortage will be felt across Canada. The need for trained individuals outweighs the demographic capabilities of Manitoba's Francophone population.

For several years now, our institution has been recruiting international students, particularly students from Francophone countries. They choose to pursue their education in Manitoba because of the quality of the training available and of the opportunity to learn English while studying in French, their mother tongue.

In return, the presence of these students represents a valuable asset to our college. However, it is also clear to us that after several years of study, some of these students would like to remain in Canada. We would be hard-pressed to find candidates better qualified to satisfy the requirements of their adoptive country. The time spent studying in Canada has prepared them well to integrate into and make a very positive contribution to Canadian society.

• 1000

The bill should emphasize the importance of international students and support the recruitment efforts of educational institutions. We applaud the proposed measures which would allow foreign students to retain permanent residence status without having to leave the country. However, this initiative should not hinder the process in place for obtaining student authorization. On the contrary, an effort should be made to facilitate the student authorization process by eliminating requirements that discourage the recruitment of foreign students.

In my view, it's worth looking to the Australian model for inspiration. In that country, international students may apply for permanent residence status upon completing their study program in addition to the recognition earned as a graduate of an Australian educational institution. This practice has enabled Australia to attract a number of graduates to the country as independent immigrants.

Students of modest financial means should have the opportunity to study abroad. One way of giving them this chance is to allow them to hold down a part-time job off campus. In addition to helping them financially, a job is an excellent way for them to integrate into Canadian society. A number of other countries allow part-time employment and we know that this opportunity is a tremendous boon in terms of recruiting foreign students.

Since Canada is a democratic country, there is an advantage to implementing a system which encourages the immigration of properly trained young people who can easily integrate into our society. International students enrolled in our educational institutions meet these criteria. Like other countries, we must take full advantage of everything our foreign students have to offer us. The new act should promote and support this course of action and set out measures for effective implementation of these provisions.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you Paul.

[English]

Canadian Bar Association, David Davis.

Mr. David H. Davis (Member, Canadian Bar Association): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I'd like to just make two very brief points.

First, on the issue of downloading of regulatory authority, I'd like to draw the members' attention to subclause 25(1) of the current bill. The CBA has a concern about access to ministerial discretion on humanitarian and compassionate cases. Currently, in the present act, any person who is in Canada can make a humanitarian and compassionate application and it will be, at some point, considered by the Minister of Immigration. The current wording in paragraph 26(a) that troubles the CBA states that to determine the circumstances in which all or part of the considerations “may be taken into account”. So the difference is that somebody could file a humanitarian and compassionate application, which would not necessarily be considered by the Minister of Immigration.

That seriously concerns the CBA because anybody should be able to be allowed if they don't meet the exact selection requirements but there is something compelling in their case. Perhaps they had troubles while being in Canada—they had an illegal period of stay—but there might be some very bona fide reasons to overcome that illegal stay, or there might be the best interests of the child, which has obviously been very much at issue in case law in the last few years, which has attempted to be legislated in the present act. But the wording is permissive. It should be mandatory. The minister should be considering those types of applications. That's my first point.

My second point has to do with clause 190 of the present bill. That talks about the transitional provisions from the current act to when the new bill will become law. Clause 190 says:

Every application, proceeding or matter under the former Act that is pending or in progress immediately before the coming into force of this section shall be governed by this Act on that coming into force.

The problem we see there is if somebody has filed an appeal today, for instance, to the Immigration and Refugee Board—and I know you've heard from the CBA on the appeal rights of permanent residents, so I'm not going to talk about the substantive appeal rights—and this act becomes law in September and their appeal has not yet been determined, what this provision is saying is that Bill C-11 will apply to that person.

• 1005

What should take place—what we propose—is that any matter that has already been filed before Citizenship and Immigration Canada should be accorded the rights and the abilities that they have under the current legislation. There should be a time cutoff. Our proposal is that if something has been filed before the new act becomes law, it should be under the old legislation.

Mr. Al Chopra, representing the National Indo-Canadian Council has a point to make.

Mr. Al Chopra (Member, National Indo-Canadian Council): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

First of all I'd like to welcome—

The Chair: Thank you for his introduction, David. I think he was next.

Welcome, Al.

Mr. Al Chopra: Welcome to friendly Manitoba, sir.

I have some serious concerns regarding the visitor visa and the student visa, particularly from India. For the last 30 years there have been no changes whatsoever. I can give you a very good example, sir. Here we had one of the seniors from our community. He was dying and it was his last wish to see his daughter—to have her come to visit Canada. He was a Canadian citizen and he sent every paper. The daughter was a visitor, and the visa was denied. The gentleman has a business in Winnipeg. They went to the local office and were even willing to put up a $100,000 bond, and still the visa was denied. This is the second time.

One time you go there and it's $125 in their pocket. The second time the visitor visa is denied; it's another $125 in their pocket. The third time we have to approach the member of Parliament. You know it's very hard for you to go. You cannot ask the minister to get a minister's permit issued. Every member of Parliament has spent 60% to 70% of their time...they have wasted their time, I would say, to just get the people there.

Finally, the gentleman died. The father died, and finally we got the ministerial permit, which cost another $250 or $300 to get the visitor visa.

My request is to say, sir, that if they're not satisfied, they should be able to send to the local office—to the manager there—or here. They must have some say. We're satisfied...we're personally willing to file a bond; the visa should be allowed.

Another example, sir, is the $1 billion invested in the student visa that every student who comes from countries...from Asian countries, particularly from Hong Kong or India. They bring almost $20,000, $25,000 to this country, and when they go back, they become automatically a fan of Canada—ambassadors for Canada.

I would like to give you a very good example. One of the ambassadors from Pakistan studied in New Brunswick. He was able to make ten deals with New Brunswick because he studied there, sir. When these people come from overseas to study, the $1 billion invested.... We are falling behind countries such as Australia and New Zealand. My request to you is.... It is extremely hard to get a student visa or a visitor visa in the case of a wedding.

Last year, again, we had a visitor's visa denied for an uncle to attend the wedding of his niece. They're treated like second and third class citizens. I'm asking you, Mr. Chair, how would you feel if on your son's wedding your sister or brother is denied a visitor's visa to come to Canada—after living here 30 years, after you provide all the evidence to them? People are even willing to give them $100,000.

Finally, you have to have a minister's permit. How many times can the minister's permit issue visas? Why don't you suggest that some system be placed...? In Canada at present there's no appeal. If an officer says no, it's no. Who has to change it? The minister can change it.

My request to you is if they're not satisfied, at least they can be sent to the local office. The managers must have some say. If they're satisfied, they should be able to come under guarantee to visit their parents, their loved ones—in cases of family emergencies, death, and marriages.

• 1010

That's all, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry, but it's an emotional case to be brought to your attention. Thank you very much for listening to my concerns.

The Chair: Thank you, Al, very much for bringing your opinions to us and those cases.

I think I speak for my colleagues when I say each one of us in our own constituency offices has had to deal with requests such as you've suggested from different parts of the world. We've heard this before, and obviously we're looking at ideas as to how we can facilitate that movement of family members into this country. Thank you very much for your input.

Mr. Al Chopra: I am requesting that before they break the laws, they should be treated there. They should be thrown out. At present, the person who breaks the law to come to Canada has more rights than I do as a Canadian citizen, sir.

The Chair: That's the other half of the equation we're dealing with.

We'll go to Winnipeg Refugee Education Committee. We have Louise Simbandumwe and Hla Win with us today. Welcome.

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe (Member, Winnipeg Refugee Education Committee): I know you requested that only one person present, but our presentation is entirely oral, and it's based on our experiences as former refugees. We'll try to keep it under five minutes, but we're hoping that—

The Chair: If both of you want to do it, you can split it. That would be fine.

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Hla Win (Member, Winnipeg Refugee Education Committee): Good morning. My name is Hla Win.

The Winnipeg Refugee Education Network is a new group made up of volunteers who are dedicated to raising awareness about refugees' rights and related issues. We are members of WREN, and we are also former refugees who have found safety in Canada from mass human rights violations.

I'm a Burmese refugee who immigrated to Canada along with my family in 1997. We strongly support the responses to Bill C-11 submitted by Amnesty International and the Canadian Council for Refugees. In this submission, we will highlight a number of concerns relating directly to our experiences as refugees.

First, family reunification: we welcome the positive changes, such as increasing the age limit for dependent children from 19 to 22, but we do not believe the bill goes far enough towards ensuring the reunification of families torn apart by circumstances beyond their control. As argued by the CCR, we believe strong measures to promote family reunification should be included in the act, instead of being left in the regulations. We are also aware of numerous situations where families split apart during flight from human rights abuses have found it impossible to reunite with loved ones in Canada.

The Chair: Excuse me, Hla. If you're reading from a text, could you slow the reading down a bit? Our interpreters are trying to do their best—and they do an absolutely fantastic job—but you have to slow it down a bit so they can in fact translate for us. Thank you.

Ms. Hla Win: Okay.

First on family reunification, we found it impossible to reunite our families who immigrated to Canada. In my case, for example, it was impossible to get our brother who immigrated to France as a refugee to at least visit our family in Canada. He was denied on at least three occasions a visiting visa. At a minimum, we believe immigration officials must be more flexible in granting visiting visas for family members. We also believe the legislation should allow for the sponsorship of a sibling.

Second, we are concerned about the selection of members of the Immigration and Refugee Board. We feel they should be selected for their professional skills and expertise, as opposed to their political connections. The process for selecting IRB members should be open and transparent, because Bill C-11 proposes that only one member hear the case of a refugee claimant. It becomes more important to have competent individuals in these positions. There are a number of refugee claimants who are part of WREN, and it is our hope they will get an informed and impartial hearing when they go before the IRB.

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe: My name is Louise Simbandumwe. I am a former refugee from Burundi. Our family came to Canada in 1978. We became refugees as a consequence of the massacres in Burundi in 1972.

One of the areas I was very concerned about, along with other members of our group, is the tone around the announcement of the bill. There seemed to be a lot of emphasis on being tough on criminals and closing the back door.

We believe this type of language leaves the impression that Canada has to protect itself against a tide of criminals, terrorists, human smugglers, and illegal immigrants. As immigrants, this makes us feel both unwelcome and alienated from other Canadians. Statements like this, we believe, reinforce stereotypes and racist attitudes towards immigrants. We would prefer a positive emphasis on the contribution of immigrants to the Canadian economy, as well as an emphasis on our international obligations to protect refugees.

• 1015

We also agree with Amnesty that the definition of human smuggling is too broad and could prevent well-meaning individuals from saving lives. Out of my mum's family, only she and her sister of six siblings survived. The way my aunt survived is that she was smuggled out of Burundi by missionaries, and they're among the few people in that situation who actually did the right thing and tried to save lives. They paid someone to help her cross over borders, and she ended up landing in Denmark without proper papers. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, the folks who helped her and the person who helped guide her through the forest could be considered a smuggler. But according to what I've seen as the definition of human smuggling, it appears they would fall under that category.

Finally, there is risk of torture. Along with other Amnesty members, I've been doing quite a lot of work on the campaign to stop torture that Amnesty has launched this year, and providing refuge is a key part of the six-point plan to stop torture. It is an ultimate defence against torture that Canada must provide refuge to people at risk of such violence, and I'm concerned that the bill might allow in some cases people being returned to a situation where they might face the risk of torture. So we believe every effort should be made to ensure that doesn't occur.

When I make presentations on coming to Canada, I often describe it as winning the lottery, in reference to what happened with our family. In coming here we left behind many people who were in precisely the same situation as us. We just happened to be incredibly lucky that we were able to arrive. Given the instability of our situation, the amount of danger going back to Burundi posed for us, I don't think that should be the case. I was talking to my mom earlier this morning about what happened to some of the other families that were in pretty well an equivalent situation to ours, but weren't lucky enough to arrive in Canada. She told me the story of one family, roughly the same size as ours, that ended up basically being bounced from Tanzania to Rwanda to Burundi over a 20-year period. The entire family ended up being killed in 1994. It was during the attack on Goma in Zaire, and they were burned alive. That could have been our family. I don't think it should be left up to chance when you consider that sort of thing happening.

From what I've read of the bill and from what I've read of Amnesty's and CCR's positions on the bill, I don't think it does anything to prevent those kinds of situations happening. I think it does leave it up to chance. I think there will continue to be bottlenecks of hundreds of thousands of people who, basically, in being able to come to Canada are lucky, as opposed to going through a determination of how much danger they're actually in and being allowed to come on the basis of international law that we all agree with.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Louise, for sharing those experiences with us.

Finally, David Matas, speaking on behalf of himself.

Mr. David Matas (Individual Presentation): Thank you.

Some of you may remember that I've appeared before this committee on behalf of the B'nai Brith concerning war crimes.

The Chair: I thought you looked familiar, David.

Mr. David Matas: Yes.

The Chair: It was on the citizenship bill, I believe.

Mr. David Matas: On Bill C-11 as well.

The Chair: How'd you manage to get in the second time, David?

Mr. David Matas: I was going to say that it's a real honour even to be invited once. To be invited twice, after you've already heard me, is a particular honour.

The Chair: Thank you, David.

Mr. David Matas: This time I'm talking about my own experience on refugee law, as a lawyer in private practice. I've written a 47-page brief, which I've given to the committee and which has 23 different recommendations. Needless to say, I will not go through that in five minutes.

The Chair: I spent all of last night reading it, from one o'clock in the morning when we arrived, David, all 47 pages.

Mr. David Matas: I'm sure after that you had a good sleep.

The Chair: I did.

• 1020

Mr. David Matas: The concern I have, if I can put it in a nutshell, is the complexity of the system in the bill. There are five different risk reviews that are set out there. In my view, there should be only one. They differ widely in fairness. There are six different categories of people who get no risk review whatsoever, despite the fact that there are these five risk reviews. In my view, everybody should get a risk review. Some people who get a risk review and are found to be at risk, the bill nonetheless will allow to return, even to certain torture, even to certain death. In my view, nobody should be returned, and the bill should say so. Nobody should be returned to torture or death.

I've tried to set out the steps in the system, and I I've put them at 15—that's before you get to court on judicial review. In my view, for refugee determination, there should be only one step of risk review, not 15. In particular, I don't think there should be any eligibility determination. Nowhere else in the court system do you have a trial to determine whether or not you're going to get a trial—you just go straight to trial. Courts have their own procedures for preventing abuse. I would say everybody should be eligible.

I also don't think there should be any pre-removal risk assessment. If there is new evidence or a change in evidence, there can just be an application to reopen before the refugee division of the Immigration and Refugee Board. I welcome the fact that there's an appeal, which wasn't in the old system, and there should continue, of course, to be that appeal. If we had the one risk review plus the appeal, that should be enough.

Lucienne Robillard, when she started the initiative for reform, referred to the present legislation as “a complex patchwork of legislative provisions that lack coherence and transparency”. That, at the time, was the motivation that led her to the process that has now become Bill C-11. Now we've got to the actual wording of Bill C-11, that objective seems to have long disappeared, and indeed, that phrase “a complex patchwork of legislative provisions that lack coherence and transparency” could be applied to the present system. I would suggest that what we need is a system that is simpler, fairer, more directly in compliance with international standards preventing return to torture or death.

Also, I have concerns with the refugee system overseas, which I think should be integrated with the system inland. I gather Tim Wichert is speaking about that in the next hour, so I won't elaborate on that. That's basically the position I bring to you this morning.

The Chair: Thank you. As usual, David, your input is very much appreciated. Thank you very much for bringing those matters, on an individual basis, to our attention.

We're now going to move to questions, and we start with Inky.

Mr. Inky Mark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me welcome all of our witnesses today. Thank you for taking time to be here.

There's no doubt that immigration has been really the history of this country. Our future history will depend on the policies we lay down today. As you know, a new bill is long overdue. The question is, are we going to do the right thing to set the boat in the right direction?

Manitoba has always had a unique position in this confederation. I agree with you, Jim, that we do need immigration. We're crying for it. I keep saying the same thing wherever I go in this country: Manitoba needs immigration. In fact, the chairman and myself are both immigrants to this country. Some presentations yesterday, to play the devil's advocate, raised the issue that Canada doesn't need immigration, and someone may have mentioned quota. The word quota is not a politically correct term to use today. Perhaps you can specify, in this province, what are the needs in the business community. Any agreement that is made with the federal government usually has numbers attached to it. So you could probably address that.

• 1025

Dr. Mauro, international students are part of a huge industry in this country. Most people don't realize that they bring billions of dollars into this country. Perhaps you could respond on whether you think it is necessary to put in a quota system when it comes to international students' placement in this country.

Mr. Arthur Mauro (Representative, Business Council of Manitoba): I'll deal first with the student issue.

I don't think there ought to be a quota system on students. I might add that I think the value that flows from the student aspect in our Canadian universities is not only the money they bring in. Frankly, I look on that as a secondary factor. We have a duty to educate people who will then go back to their country. We have a tremendous number of students in post-graduate work in our faculty of agriculture, and our hope is that they don't remain in Canada but go back to their own country and assist them.

So we are making a contribution to the world in our Canadian post-secondary institutions. They do contribute to us when we bring in people. Many of them do remain, and they contribute to the advancement of our society.

On the needs here, I think there is a tremendous unmet need in particular industries, specifically in the needle trades, as we've identified, in nursing, and we could go on. For instance, in such industries as furniture manufacturing our companies are begging for help. We know there are people out there who desire to come here.

So the requirements for Manitoba are very real. The evidence is there. The agreements between the province and the federal government have been completed, but we still need the cooperation of the system to actually produce the individuals for Manitoba. We find that when they come here, they enter into our society and they remain here, and they're good citizens.

From my own standpoint, being the son of immigrants, the only qualifications ought to be good health and good character. Otherwise, I don't think many of us would be here today. I think it's tragic that we have not yet reached the level that was reached in 1913, that being 400,000 immigrants. Consider the per capita impact of that immigration policy and the policy of Laurier. They say the west would have been denuded without that policy. We have to have the same imagination today, and the same ability to take risks in terms of attracting people to this country, particularly to this province.

Mr. Inky Mark: The bill refers to permanent residents as foreign nationals, which has created a lot of debate. Again, it's an issue of status. What status do you really have if you are deemed to have permanent residency?

One of the suggestions one of our own colleagues brought forth was that perhaps we should have a landed status and a non-landed status. If you're landed, then you have some kind of status.

Can any of you comment on this whole issue of permanent status and the changes the bill would bring about?

The Chair: David Matas and then David Davis.

Mr. David Matas: Well, it is a pejorative term, foreign national, and I gather this has been well covered in other hearings of this committee. I would just echo those concerns. It would be preferable not to have a term like that. Basically it puts a distance between these people and us, saying they're different, they're other, they're strangers, they're alien, they're foreign. If we're trying to integrate these people and say they're becoming part of us, that's not the proper way to do it.

The Chair: Mr. Davis.

Mr. David Davis: I would just follow up by saying that some negative emotive meaning is associated with the term of foreign national. I know you've heard this countless times already. Why not just keep the current term of permanent resident, or landed immigrant?

The Chair: Any other comments on that particular point? If not, I'll move on quickly. Before I leave the chair, John McCallum has one particular question.

Mr. John McCallum: I think Anita has one.

The Chair: That's fine by me.

Anita, go ahead.

• 1030

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have many questions, and I'm going to try to do what Judy did in the last round and ask many of them.

Before I do that, I just want to make a personal comment. I want to tell you about the pride with which I sit here as a Manitoban and listen to the diversity of the presentations we have here—for instance, the community that is actively seeking immigrants for economic purposes, for humanitarian purposes, and the efforts that this community goes to for resettlement supports.

We came from Vancouver yesterday, where we heard a diversity of presentations but certainly also heard many presentations that did not support either the welcoming or the integration of immigrants to our country. So to sit here as a Manitoban and listen to the diversity of what we're hearing today gives me enormous pride, and I want to thank everybody here.

That said, I do have some questions and some comments.

Mr. Mauro and Jim, recently John McCallum and I were on a tour, with the minister, of several countries in Asia. We went to visit several of the posts. Many times we heard the Manitoba provincial nominee program cited as a model of what can and should be done to recruit immigrants here.

My understanding is that the numbers have been increased. Manitoba is creative and flexible in terms of its recruitment. I think particularly of the recruitment of nurses to this province from the Philippines by actually doing the accreditation exams there so that we can recruit them here. I'd like your comments in terms of what else Manitoba can do in partnership with the federal government and what else Manitoba can do in terms of partnership outreach.

Let me give you a bit of an example. On that tour we saw many people who were coming to Canada. We sat in on groups of often twenty or thirty, and probably most of them were going to Toronto. Some were going to Vancouver, one or two to Calgary, and maybe three or four to Manitoba. I made a big production when they said they were coming to Manitoba. We actually had somebody who I saw in Korea last week turn up at our office open house on Friday. A member of my staff, who is here today, is helping them get settled and facilitating employment. We may come to you for some help.

We need to somehow promote Manitoba. When they said they were going to Toronto, I wanted to say—with all due respect to those from Toronto—“Why are you going into that black hole? Come here, where you'll be supported and loved and encouraged.”

The Chair: Everybody loves to hate Toronto. I'm not from Toronto either, but poor John.

Ms. Anita Neville: Well, that's okay, but they have to learn more about Manitoba, Mr. Chair. There is much happening here.

The Chair: We're going to Toronto tomorrow, so those of you who are watching from Toronto can get at us then.

Ms. Anita Neville: But there is much to be said for Manitoba, and I would like some comments on that.

To David Davis, David Matas, and the young women representing what is a new organization, one of the amendments....

I know, David Davis, you spoke about the issue of “may” as opposed to “shall”. But what I am proposing to put forward, under the access to refugee determination system, is clarification of the policy amendment, the policy intent, to exempt refugees under the provisions in clause 42. I'm hoping to put forward a recommendation for clause 42 that, where it says “a foreign national, other than a permanent resident”, would add “or a protected person, is admissible on grounds”. I'd welcome your comments.

• 1035

all Under clause 26, the humanitarian and compassionate review, which is one of the most important safeguards in the system, I want to delete in clause 26, “and, in the case of an exercise of power delegated under subsection 6(2), in section 25”, so the clause reads, “the circumstances in which all or part of the considerations referred to in section 24 may be taken into account”.

David Matas, you have said you put forward many, many recommendations. What are your top two or three priorities?

The Chair: All of the questions must be answered within five minutes. She has taken five minutes to ask the questions, so you each have two seconds to answer. No, no, I'm sorry.

Jim.

Mr. Jim Carr: Mr. Chairman, let me apologize, because Dr. Mauro and I will have to leave after the answer to go to another meeting.

Very quickly, Ms. Neville, the first thing to do is raise the numbers. If you look at the ceiling within the negotiated agreement and at the applications under the agreement, you'll see a factor of six, seven, or eight. Simply renegotiating the ceiling is the first thing to do.

The second thing to do is to create sensitivity in the posts abroad about Manitoba and what Manitoba has to offer.

Thirdly, we believe there is a competitive advantage inherent in accreditation. If it is easier for professionals to practise their profession in one jurisdiction versus another, they're more likely to come here. Too many of our professions are closed shops. It's time to open the door and to apply pressure within these organizations to be more inclusive. That's the third thing.

The fourth thing is our suggestion that there be a Manitoba council on immigration created to reflect the interests of the entire community, the public sector, employers, and NGOs. So the recruitment effort will be a community one, not solely from one sector within our community. If we do all of those things, we'll give Manitoba a much better chance.

Thank you for your attention, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, we have to go.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You're great ambassadors for Manitoba and Winnipeg. Thank you both.

David Davis, with regard to the “may” to “shall”. I think the question was posed with regard to....

Mr. David Davis: Yes, paragraph 26(c), to which Ms. Neville referred.

Certainly this would be an improvement to this legislation, because I know this committee is going quickly to clause-by-clause reading, starting next week. This is why I wanted to preface my comments by going directly to individual provisions.

It's important that it be clear to individuals filing humanitarian and compassionate applications that their applications will in some form be considered by the minister. So I think the words....

What exactly were the words you suggested, Ms. Neville?

Ms. Anita Neville: I suggested deleting, under clause 26, “and, in the case of an exercise of a power delegated under subsection 6(2), in section 25”.

Mr. David Davis: That's right; take that out completely.

Ms. Anita Neville: Yes.

Mr. David Davis: Thank you.

The Chair: Good suggestion, Anita. Thank you for your comment.

I believe, David, the question was posed to you.

Mr. David Matas: What are three priorities from my 23 recommendations?

Well, of course, I'd like them all, but if I had to choose only one, it would be prohibiting the removal of “to torture or death”. Absolutely, do not remove it from any case. If I had to choose only two, my second would have to be a risk review in every case—not just in some cases, but in all cases. If I had to choose only three, my third would be to improve the fairness of the visa office refugee determination system; you'll hear more on that from Tim Wichert. But I like them all.

The Chair: We might, too. You might not get only three. It's not a lottery. They are good ideas, and the job of this committee obviously is to consider those ideas, put them forward, and see if the government and the minister accept them and try to improve the bill. So thank you.

Louise, any comments with regard to...? None. Okay.

We'll move now to Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

Anita said it all when she described the role Manitoba has played in establishing a welcoming immigration policy, a tolerance permeating every aspect of our society. That's really the issue we have to look at in terms of presenters this morning.

Louise Simbandumwe said it when she commented on the tone of the bill, as opposed to any specific measures, the tone being one of over-preoccupation with enforcement and protection, pandering to prejudice.

Given what we see in Manitoba, and it is reflective of the broader population, what prejudices are we pandering to with this bill, who are these people, and why are we doing this, when in fact everybody this morning is saying if we're going to be competitive globally for immigrants and refugees, we've got to have a welcoming policy? This means dealing with the barriers for refugees, with the specific examples David and Louise and others have raised.

• 1040

We not only have to focus on the economic class and the skill set, but we have to truly look at family reunification and sponsorship, settlement programs, recognition of foreign credentials, the whole range of things that make it attractive for people to come to this country and to this province.

I have one other point, Mr. Chairperson. Folks should know that Manitoba has increased its numbers recently. But all of the increase came as a result of either the provincial nominee program or private and church sponsorships, not as a result of our national legislative framework. That's what we're hoping to change through this bill.

Is it possible to amend this bill to do that? Let me ask another, rather rhetorical, question: will we be worse off with this bill than we are now, in terms of those broad goals?

The question is for anyone who would like to answer.

The Chair: Why don't we start.

Louise, any comments?

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe: I'm not sure if we're worse off, because I'm not sure how it would play out.

When I look at wanting to sponsor some of our relatives.... They are in a situation where the family has been split up; half the family is in Rwanda, half in Burundi, and in Burundi they are in what I would consider to be a refugee-like situation, even though they're not technically refugees....

When I look at my case also trying to sponsor two women currently in Nairobi—and again, they're roughly my age, and I have a lot of empathy for their circumstances, because they could just as easily be me—I don't think there's anything in the bill to make this process of sponsoring refugees easier for me. Meanwhile, I know they are facing life and death situations in the case of the women, situations where I'm fairly certain they are at risk of rape and assault, even in refugee camps.

I'll leave it at that.

The Chair: Paul Ruest, do you have any comments?

Mr. Paul Ruest: No, I have to leave, sir.

The Chair: Okay.

David.

Mr. David Matas: Well, obviously what Louise has said is right. One has to see how it will all play out.

But if I stand back from it and look at it only as a legislative scheme, and considering what I've heard from various announcements, whether we are better or worse off in terms of welcoming, my sense is it depends on the component of the immigration system looked at. In terms of the economic streams, we're better off; but in terms of the humanitarian streams, we're worse off, and this is of concern to me.

The Chair: Okay.

Sorry, yes.

Ms. Louise Simbandumwe: Very quickly, one last thing of concern to me is that much has been left to the regulations, as opposed to being entrenched in the bill, particularly its more humanitarian aspects.

Obviously this means it doesn't have the same force. It's much easier to change it without having this kind of public scrutiny occur. So that is another thing I would push for, to have more of an entrenchment within the bill itself of some of the things Amnesty International and the CCR have said are quite positive, as opposed to being left to the regulations.

The Chair: Thank you.

David.

Mr. David Davis: Thank you. My comment would be to caution the committee that, when the clause-by-clause begins next week, there's no rush to put this through.

This is a major revision to a piece of legislation that hasn't been tackled in a group effort for over 20 years. You don't want to make any hasty decisions by including clauses that are going to result in some negative aspects, as you've heard from the presenters this morning, as well as from those yesterday in Vancouver and those you will be hearing in Toronto.

So when you go to clause-by-clause, take into consideration everyone's comments and don't rush it through. This is a major piece of work; you want to keep in mind the vision Canada should try to achieve: inclusion rather than exclusion.

• 1045

Thank you.

The Chair: Let me just comment on that before I leave the chair and move to other questions.

A new immigration bill has been in the making for four or five years or more. It's been our government's commitment to move to a new, modern bill for over four or five years. It's been on and off the table for a good many years. Bill C-11 is just the most recent version. A lot of it has come about by virtue of input.

Yes, we will start our clause-by-clause, hopefully next week. We will hear formal presentations from 154 Canadians, and before that we will have heard from even more. We're not about to rush this because we want to make sure we get it right. We want to make sure that the vision is right, that the legislation is right, and that the rights are right. It's a process that I'm sure is going to take some time. We'll take as much time as we need.

I'm confident that when we start the heavy-duty work of clause-by-clause, our researchers and everybody else here will make sure to remind us of some of the things that were said by you, David, Louise, Hla, and David, so we'll be able to capture the essence. We're going to take all the time we need, but I can tell you this country needs a new immigration act, and we're determined to get it done with. We won't put it on the back burner again, as has been done over the past couple of years. That was just a comment, if you will permit.

When we get to the questions you can—

Mr. John Herron: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Herron: It's not a question. It was on the particular note of the timing of the clause-by-clause study of the bill. I'd like to send a signal that since we're going to be hearing a myriad of witnesses, even as late as Friday, we'd like some time to prepare any amendments we may want to propose for the clause-by-clause study. We may be moving too fast toward the clause-by-clause, and we'd like to have some legislative time—at least as soon as the front end of next week—to prepare the wording in order to properly utilize the presentations of this week, particularly those received this coming Friday.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Yes. I agree we all need time, and so far this committee has worked very well and in a non-partisan fashion. I want to make sure that if we can achieve consensus amongst the committee, we're going to move towards that. Yes, there will be time available throughout the process. I'm not sure we'll get the clause-by-clause all done next week. We may in fact take the following week, but we're going to take the time we need in order to make sure we get it right.

Having said that, I'll now move to Madeleine. What is your question?

[Translation]

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

Although some of our witnesses had to leave, I would still like to comment briefly on their presentations. As far as immigration requirements are concerned, Mr. Carr's testimony tied in very well with yesterday's presentations. Immigration must be such that it meets the needs of Manitoba and I can understand that.

Given that ours is a wealthy and privileged nation in many respects, I would have liked to ask witnesses the following question. However, I will put it to you, since you are from Manitoba. When it comes to welcoming immigrants, do you have room for people who are less privileged, who don't have a PhD or BA and who have endured hardship? I imagine that one day, I will have some answers to these questions.

I see that you're still here, Mr. Davis. How fortunate for me. In your presentation, you expressed opposition to clause 190. Did I understand you correctly? If so, I'd like you to share your reasons with me. However, if I misunderstood you, then by all means tell me and I will be better informed.

[English]

Mr. David Davis: The key words that pose a problem in clause 190 are the words “pending or in progress”. What we propose is that only applications that have been filed with the department after Bill C-11 becomes law should be subject to Bill C-11, not cases already in progress, such as one where I sponsored my father from overseas right now. Let's say for argument's sake that if this bill becomes law within the next six months, that sponsorship process will keep going on past the coming into effect of this bill. Let's say there was something in my father's background one of the sections of this new legislation might apply to in a negative sense—procedurally, that is. I'm talking about procedural, not substantive factors because the case law has said that if there are substantive changes in the legislation that affect something that is pending, that person will have the benefit of only being subject to the positive things in the piece of legislation. I'm talking about procedural matters, appeal rights being one of them, and I know that you heard a lot from my colleagues in Vancouver yesterday on appeal rights.

• 1050

Under this bill, if something is pending at the time, the immigrants are going to be subject to Bill C-11. We think it should only apply to matters that have been filed after Bill C-11 becomes law. Does that make it...?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I may wish to comment on what you said. As I understand it, you are concerned that the draft legislation will hurt certain people who are already in the system. Is that correct?

[English]

Mr. David Davis: That's correct.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you, Madeleine.

In theory we're supposed to have finished, but we'll have two more rounds.

I'd like to make just one very quick point because it speaks directly to a point Louise made. I think what a number of people have commented on is true, that the scope for regulations is very broad and that in theory at least regulations could undo some of the core aspects of the act. What I'm suggesting is that when we get to the clause-by-clause, I would propose an amendment whose intent would be to confirm the government's intent to ensure that all matters affecting fundamental rights and freedoms and core principles would not be subject to change through the regulations.

That doesn't answer all your concerns, but I think it would answer that one concern a number of people have raised.

John Herron.

Mr. John Herron: Yes. The line of questioning I would maybe like to follow is that first off I want to echo the comments made by Louise, that the party that's moved this bill is the party of Laurier, Mike Pearson, and Pierre Trudeau. It has always been a very welcoming party to immigration. However, the tenor of the comments on criminality has, I think, really skewed the debate and the intent of what this legislation should be, so I would echo your comments.

The question I have for Mr. Davis relates to his comment on clause 190, namely that for any application or appeal that's sort of in the queue right now, we should utilize the existing legislation as opposed to the new legislation. That's almost like saying that the old car is better than a new car. Are you saying there are more losses than wins in this piece of legislation?

Mr. David Davis: If you're talking about appeal rights for permanent residents, absolutely. If you're talking about appeal rights for refugees, yes. If you're talking about appeal rights and access to the federal courts for overseas visa refusals, absolutely.

Mr. John Herron: The provincial Conservative Party will be proposing such an amendment to clause 25 to ensure that all applications will be heard with due attention to humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I wanted the CBA to know that fact.

Mr. David Davis: Thank you.

Mr. John Herron: I've finished now, Mr. Chair.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you.

[Translation]

Yolande, do you have any questions or comments? In that case,

[English]

I'd like to thank you all very much on behalf of the committee. It's true, I'm guilty of living in Toronto now, but I did live four years in Manitoba.

I would like to suggest to the committee members that you check out prior to the session resuming at one o'clock and that you bring your baggage down to this room.

Thank you very much, and we're adjourned. No, we're not adjourned.

A voice: No, we have another one.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Of course. My apologies. We have another presentation, but thank you very much, those who just spoke to us.

• 1055

• 1101

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I would ask the members to return. I got a bit ahead of myself, thinking it was lunch. Time passes fast when you're having fun.

I'd like to welcome our new set of witnesses: the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba, Shirley Matile; the Mennonite Central Committee, Timothy Wichert; the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council, Marty Dolin. The others I'll introduce as we proceed.

I ask each of you to make an opening statement of five minutes, starting with Shirley Matile.

Ms. Shirley Matile (Director of Admissions, Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba): Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Shirley Matile. I'm the director of admissions at the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba, APEGM, which is the regulatory body established by provincial statute to regulate the practices of engineering and geoscience in Manitoba. The association currently has over 3,700 licensees, of whom some 460, or 12%, obtained their education outside Canada. We process 400 to 500 applications every year. Of these, 30 to 40 are from applicants educated in countries other than Canada.

Established in 1920, APEGM has 81 years of experience in setting standards required for admission into the engineering profession and assessing the qualifications of persons seeking licensure against those standards. The standards are updated regularly to ensure public protection, while recognizing the continually changing scope of our profession. The same standards are imposed on all who apply, and we issue licences to any and all applicants who meet the standards.

I'm here today to support the representations made in Ottawa by both the Coalition of Regulatory-Related Agencies, CORA, and the Canadian Council of Professional Engineers, CCPE. We too believe that some of the proposed changes may unintentionally hinder immigrants who wish to practise in self-regulating professions such as ours. We are concerned that Bill C-11 and its regulations may lead to the loss of a vital communication link between our profession and potential immigrants, both through the elimination of occupation from the immigration selection criteria for skilled workers, and through the referral of professional immigrants to provincially mandated credential assessment agencies. For regulated professions such as ours, if occupation is no longer a selection criterion, Bill C-11 should require immigrants to make direct contact with the appropriate regulatory body before making an immigration decision. This will ensure that people have the information they need about practising professions that are regulated in Canada.

We are also concerned about the proposed creation of provincially mandated credential evaluation agencies. These agencies are neither able nor legally entitled to assess qualifications for licensure, and they may well impede the professions' legislated authority to regulate themselves. I have personally witnessed the distress, confusion, and often anger of dozens of immigrant engineers who have paid hard-earned money to credentialling agencies, only to learn that they still have to meet the requirements of the association. Directing immigrants with credentials in professions that are regulated in Canada to credentialling agencies will only compound their confusion and false expectations.

• 1105

I would like to relate to you the Manitoba experience with professional certification. A decade ago the Manitoba government responded to concerns of immigrant professionals by establishing a working group on immigrant credentials. This group's 1991 report recommended creating a centralized credentials and skills evaluation network to address all issues related to the accreditation of credentials in all occupations and professions. The government's response to this report was the creation of the immigrant credentials and labour market branch. This branch quickly realized that to duplicate or parallel the role of the regulatory body was an impossible task. Recognizing the professions' years of expertise and their legislated authority, it began collaborating with the regulatory bodies in a relationship that has been truly beneficial, not only to the government and the regulators, but, far more importantly, to the immigrants, who now have a central body in Manitoba for acquiring information on professional and occupational requirements. Because the branch subsidizes immigrants in their quest for professional licensure, we believe it has helped increase the number of immigrant professional engineers in Manitoba.

We share CCPE's and CORA's concern with the assumption that immigrants who were professionals in their home countries will be satisfied in related occupations if they are not qualified to be licensed in Canada. APEGM, along with the other provincial engineering regulators, works diligently to set standards, not barriers, for the practice of engineering in Canada. We make sure our standards exist only to protect the public and are equally applicable to all who apply. In fact, the Human Rights Commission upheld the equity of APEGM's admission process on two separate occasions in recent years. But such challenges do demonstrate that to many immigrants, taking work in a related occupation is not an acceptable alternative. I can assure you that, in my experience, immigrant engineers very much want to be engineers in Canada.

In conclusion, APEGM joins CCPE and CORA in requesting that subclause 3(3) of Bill C-11 be amended to include a direct reference to provincial or territorial regulatory authorities. We further request that Bill C-11 in its regulations explicitly recognize the expertise and the statutory authority of the existing regulatory bodies to evaluate the professional qualifications of all those seeking admission into the professions in Canada, and that caution be exercised in recommending the use of provincially mandated credentialling agencies.

Thank you. I appreciate your attention.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

Now I'll go to Timothy Wichert from the Mennonite Central Committee.

Mr. Timothy Wichert (Canada Refugee Programme Coordinator, Mennonite Central Committee): Thank you, Mr. McCallum. The Mennonite Central Committee is grateful for this opportunity to comment on Bill C-11.

We've been involved in immigration and refugee concerns since our inception in 1920. In 1979 MCC was the first national organization to sign a master agreement with the government to facilitate the private sponsorship of refugees. In the last 20 years we estimate we've assisted over 10,000 refugees, at a cost to our churches of approximately $50 million. So we're obviously interested in and concerned with the new law related to these issues.

In our written recommendations, which you've received, we have outlined six specific issues. I would like to focus on two of these. First, Bill C-11 does not improve the overseas processing of refugees. Without significant improvements, overseas refugees will continue to want to come to Canada to make their asylum claims. Second, there must be a better balance between a so-called commitment to get tough and exclude people for past activities and the need to show compassion, offer a new start, and keep families together.

Let me give an example that relates to both of these issues. A Mennonite church in Ontario applied to sponsor a refugee from Sudan, Mr. Ashien He had been persecuted in Sudan because of his Christianity and because of his support for the political opposition in southern Sudan. He was interviewed by a Canadian immigration officer, who decided he could not come to Canada. He was inadmissible because of his involvement with the political opposition, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement. Because of some of the activities the organization had been involved with, he was deemed to be a terrorist. There was no indication that he had participated in any violence. He was found guilty by association. We were perplexed.

• 1110

The Government of Canada has never said that the SPLM or the Sudan's People Liberation Army are terrorist groups. Indeed, Foreign Affairs has been actively engaged with them as legitimate parties in peace talks. MCC knew Mr. Ashien as someone who is kind and generous, who sings in the church choir, and who works hard to make ends meet, so we assisted him with a judicial review of his case. We argued that the immigration officer had cast her net too broadly. He was not a terrorist. He had not engaged in terrorist activities.

He got a new hearing, but now there was a twist. His son and common-law spouse had meanwhile escaped Sudan and applied to come to Canada from Egypt. They were accepted, and they moved to Edmonton in the summer of 1999. We submitted this information to the visa post, arguing that this was a compelling consideration to balance with the issue of whether or not he was a terrorist. He was refused again.

We requested a copy of his file to see what issues the immigration department was looking at. We received this a year later. Here's what we learned: first, there were at least six people within the government trying to build a case against him, yet when he asked to have someone attend his interview simply for moral support, he was refused.

Second, the immigration officer who decided his case said this in an e-mail to Immigration headquarters in Ottawa before the interview:

You suggest that we contact you before the next interview in order to build a strong refusal. Please advise me by e-mail of any suggestions concerning the preparation of the refusal.

An immigration officer was preparing the refusal before the interview.

Third, regarding the issue we raised, family connections in Canada and humanitarian and compassionate consideration, one of the e-mails between immigration officials says this:

Unless the applicant requested an R 21 determination, don't give it to him. Unless the applicant asked for agency consideration, he cannot argue at judicial reviews that he was denied it.

This highlights the danger of putting things in regulations, because we are told that the regulations say just the opposite, that they automatically trigger a humanitarian and compassionate review where there are compelling family connections.

Where would you rather make a refugee claim? Without significant improvements in this overseas system, refugees will want to find ways to come to Canada to make their asylum claim. In Canada they get access to a fairly independent tribunal, fairer decision-making, a faster process, and a proposed new review process, and they can seek advice and have a lawyer or adviser help them.

We have a number of recommendations in our paper for improving this process. Don't just tinker with the system. Make some significant improvements. For example, you could provide for a branch of the Refugee Protection Division in part 2 to determine refugee claims overseas. You could provide for a review of decisions made overseas by the new Refugee Appeal Division, or alternatively by the Immigration Appeal Division.

Further, security grounds are much too sweeping and ill-defined, and terms such as “subversion” and “terrorism” must be clearly defined. At present they are used arbitrarily to exclude too many people. All current and past members of the African National Congress of South Africa could be deemed inadmissible to Canada as terrorists still today, including Nelson Mandela. There must be strict limits in legislation to prevent immigration officers from casting their nets too broadly with unfettered discretion. Terrorism should be restricted to acts articulated in UN conventions, such as hijacking, hostage-taking, and bombing.

Mr. Ashien would still like to get to Canada. Five years later we're still trying.

But this case serves as an example of the shortcomings of Bill C-11. It underscores why the overseas processing of refugees needs significant improvement, and it highlights why sweeping, ill-defined terminology, designed to get tough and keep people out of Canada, is harsh. If it's not changed, it will continue to keep out genuine refugees who are hard-working and seeking a new start with their family. Let's make that a priority.

• 1115

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much, Mr. Wichert.

Next is Marty Dolin of the Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council. Welcome.

Mr. Marty Dolin (Executive Director, Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to go back to a comment and a question Anita Neville asked earlier about a vision. One of the things that I think Art Mauro referred to is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier talked about Canada owning the 20th century. One of his assumptions was that by December 31, 2000, there would be 100 million people in this country. That's not true.

I think one of the things that should underlie any immigration act is the optimum population Canada needs for its best productivity level and social and economic situation as a sovereign nation. I think this debate has to take place someplace. I don't know if this committee is the appropriate body to do this.

My assumption comes from a Manitoba basis, which I think Jim Carr articulated very well. We need more people in this province. We need more rich people. We need people who are going to have children who will go to universities, get degrees, and build this province. The best way to keep them down on the farm in Manitoba is with familial relations and jobs. I think the bill creates some serious problems with this.

I am also involved in the sponsorship of refugees, as is the Mennonite Central Committee. The Manitoba Interfaith Immigration Council has been involved since about 1945. We don't go back to 1920.

Paragraph 14(2)(c) bothers me considerably, as it does many of the faith groups who sponsor people. That involves allowing for quotas and limits to be set on the number of visas issued. If you take the Manitoba perspective and say we need more people here, why would you want to put on caps and limitations? The other thing related to this is, why is there a cap at all on the provincial nominee program? If employers in this province want to bring in people with skills they can't find in Canada, and they have jobs for them, why should there be any limitations? It would be self-limiting if there were no jobs for the people who have these particular skills. They wouldn't be bringing them in. That paragraph bothers me, and I think it should be eliminated. There should be no caps, particularly on private sponsorships.

This brings me to subclause 12(2), which is about family sponsorship.

I'd like to give a little history of this. Back in 1992 the Immigration Act regulations were changed. You could sponsor brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, etc., prior to 1992. Mr. Valcourt was the minister at that time, and he changed this.

In about 1993-94 a study was done in Peel, Ontario, which has since been proven to be at best ambiguous and at worst absolutely fallacious. What was determined then was that 14% of the family sponsorships were deadbeats, to use a familiar term. People had reneged on their willingness to sponsor the relatives they had signed on for. Looking back at this, this is fallacious. For example, somebody had to sign a 10-year sponsorship. If for one day the person they had sponsored had gone on welfare, unemployment, or any other form of social assistance, that was considered a failed sponsorship. That is totally untrue. I talked to Peel, Ontario.

At the same time I did a study in Winnipeg. I called Russ Simmonds, who was the director of welfare, and asked him how many failed sponsorships we had in Winnipeg out of how many welfare clients. The number of welfare clients in Winnipeg at that time, which was the same time as the Peel study, was 13,700. The number of failed sponsorships was—count them—11, which is 0.0029%, certainly not 14%.

The reality is that—it has been referred to here and Ken Zaifman was getting around the edges of this—if you have people sign an enforceable contractual agreement with the government, there will be no fallback on welfare or any other form of support for family sponsoring.

One of the things that bothers me is that when Sergio Marchi was the minister, he extrapolated that, based on the Peel study, that would involve 300,000 people and x millions of dollars. I then heard Madame Robillard say the same thing, and recently, within the last six months, I heard the current minister, Elinor Caplan, still quoting that Peel study. I want to point out to this committee that this study, if it were reviewed, would be found to be fallacious. It is not true, and certainly to go by my contacts in Winnipeg, it cannot be extrapolated to the rest of Canada.

• 1120

The reality is that we need more people in this country. I would suggest very simply a change in subclause 12(2) to open it up again. I would also point out that there was a national study commissioned by Madame Robillard, called “Not Just the Numbers”. They reported in 1997, and one of the things they said on the ability to bring people in is that the problem of family sponsorships could be solved by a simple provision allowing the immigration of individuals to whom a Canadian is prepared to make a long-term enforceable sponsorship commitment, period. They don't point to even familial relationship. If I wanted to sponsor my friend and I was willing to sign a contract and could afford to do so, this was the recommendation that was here.

Certainly people should be allowed to sponsor their brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews. In my business, where we do settlement also, we see a great many problems with extended families missing members. You're missing your cousin, your brother; you're worried about them, as Louise pointed out very clearly, in refugee-like situations and in very dangerous circumstances, where you cannot get them to Canada. I would suggest that subclause 12(2) be changed to “a foreign national may be selected as a member of the family class by the signing of an undertaking of assistance by a Canadian citizen or permanent resident”, period, as recommended by the Immigration Review Committee, which went across Canada hearing many submissions, saying this would be the appropriate way of opening the doors to people bringing in their relatives and taking the commitment, without Canada having to worry about the financial responsibilities.

So to me, that is one of the most significant issues most of you who are urban members of Parliament would probably see in your offices all the time, people coming in and saying, why can't I get my brother, my sister, my niece, my nephew—they're in dangerous situations. Prior to 1992 they could, and I think the bill is a retrograde step. It's not even considering what the review committee recommended or the situation that obtained prior to 1992.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much, Mr. Dolin.

[Translation]

Our next witnesses represent the École technique et professionnelle. Welcome, Mr. Dandeneau and Ms. Pelletier.

Mr. David Dandeneau (Director, Developmental Support Office, École technique et professionnelle): Thank you.

Our presentation will be very brief. I am the Director of the Developmental Support Office at the École technique et professionnelle, a small community college operating under the same roof as the Collège universitaire de Saint-Boniface. I'm in charge of general and international student recruitment. Marjolaine Pelletier works with me on the international side of things. Therefore, we'll be sharing this presentation time.

The mission of the École technique et professionnelle in Saint-Boniface is to provide a post-secondary education in French to Manitoba's Francophones and to anyone interested in receiving this kind of education. Our institution is recognized by the provincial government as a facility which offers students a bilingual education in Manitoba. The community college offers a range of two-year programs culminating in a degree.

Ms. Marjolaine Pelletier (Responsible for International Docket, École technique et professionnelle): Our international student body continues to grow. Our students hail from various Francophone countries around the world. They come here because they want to work in fields that require a knowledge of Canada's two official languages. They choose to study in Canada because it gives them an opportunity to study in French while learning English.

After studying in Canada for several years, some students wish to remain in this country. One would be hard-pressed to find candidates better prepared to satisfy the requirements of their adoptive country.

Mr. David Dandeneau: The bill fails to recognize how important foreign students are to Canada or that one of the goals of post- secondary institutions is to facilitate student recruitment. Any changes to the bill should facilitate the entry of international students in recognition of the academic, cultural and economic benefits they bring to Canada.

• 1125

Recently, I was approached by Great-West Life Assurance which merged with, or was taken over by, London Life Insurance Company. Great-West is experiencing a serious shortage of bilingual employees. Even though we make every effort to recruit people from the available pool of Francophones and from the various immersion schools in Manitoba, we still can't meet the demand, which means that we must opt for recruiting students abroad. Even then, we are not convinced that... We often lament that it is hard for us to attract international students, or to facilitate their entry into Canada.

Ms. Marjolaine Pelletier: Since tuition fees for international students are quite high, it would help a great deal if they could secure part-time employment off campus during the school year or during their vacation. Between 15 and 20 hours a week would be nice. If these students were hired, aside from helping them integrate into Manitoban society, it would help ease the shortage of human resources in certain sectors of the province's economy.

Students who come to this country want to learn English. The best way for them to do so is to work for English companies. By working, they learn the culture and language, not to mention that they earn money to pay for their studies. Foreign students are no different from Canadian students who must pay for their own education. Often they are still dependents and feel bad about taking money from their parents to study in Canada. They would appreciate being able to provide some assistance in order to ease the financial burden.

Mr. David Dandeneau: Governments or the Canadian public cover part of the cost. Programs are often instituted to help new immigrants integrate into society. This process takes place at no cost to the Canadian public, given that students pay their own tuition fees. Because they have lived here in Canada, they have become integrated in the process into our society.

Therefore, we fully support the position of the AUCC on international students. Allow me to quote an excerpt from their report:

They make an enormous contribution to the academic endeavour and bring a crucial global perspective to Canadian campuses and classrooms. They also contribute significant economic returns to Canadian universities and local communities right across the country. Over the long term, foreign student alumni become important ambassadors for Canadian trade and political interests abroad.

Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

We heard a similar presentation yesterday in Vancouver. Personally, I'm all in favour of measures which facilitate the entry of international students. I think this is good not only from an economic standpoint, but from a social and cultural perspective as well.

[English]

Thank you very much.

Next we have Mr. Singh from the Dynamic Sikh Cultural and Senior Society.

Mr. Kewal Singh (Dynamic Sikh Cultural and Senior Society Inc.): Thank you.

I have heard so many things from Donald and my friends, that there are so many countries where undeclared wars are going on and people have been uprooted from those parts, who try to take refuge in countries where they can come and get asylum. But unfortunately, we have seen for a long time that such people as are engaged in human rights activities have been denied the chance to get settled, and they have been again and again refused visas, or they have not been given the application even to get the visas.

• 1130

So I would request this standing committee that it try to modify such terms as we have seen, members or terrorist. It's very vague language in this bill. It should be clarified. Such things should be seen in a spirit of goodwill. So the people who strive for human rights shouldn't be labelled as terrorists. And there are some other points that we propose to modify the automatic exclusion of people convicted of crimes outside Canada. This will provide the process for asylum seekers who have been convicted of serious crime. The risk assessment hearing should be heard by a powerful committee like the Refugee Board, and not by Citizenship and Immigration, because they have some more privileges.

As we know, the Canadian government fully respects the UN convention against torture, and it prohibits the return of anyone to a country where they would face further torture, no matter what they have done in the past. So we have to respect such things in whatever law we are going to make.

Special consideration will be given to business people, as well as to the students, because the people who come from such parts try to get themselves settled in this country, they work hard to live a good life. As Marty Dolin said, they have been labelled 14% on welfare, but this is not the case. It has been proved by the papers, by so many agencies, that those people work hard to become good citizens.

The Immigration and Refugee Board should be assigned to deliver special consultation for repeat claims. This is a great concern. We propose to remove the requirement for leave to appear before the federal court for judicial review of a rejected visa application, etc. The annual report regarding all these cases should be published, so the people can know what's happening for the fate of these people here.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We will now go to questions.

[English]

Inky, would you like to begin?

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

Welcome to the committee, and thank you for taking the time to be here.

I have no problem agreeing with you that we do need a vision of where this country's headed on the immigration side. We do need to have some sense of number too. The government says the target is 1%, but where is that going to take us 10 years, 20 years, 30 years down the road? That's a very important question that was raised this morning.

Having returned from China during this past month, and having had a chance to speak to many consulate officers, immigration people as well, I see the dilemma to be that they are trying to do their job, and they need the resources, the manpower, and the tools to do it, trying to balance securing the borders and ensuring that the legitimate movement of people is free, thus ensuring that Canada is perceived as a compassionate country. Many people in the world want to come here. That's a fact of life. It's not an easy task to try to balance the two. As soon as we give the enforcement people more tools, the advocates for refugees on this side complain and say we're tightening the system up too much. But I'm going to stay away from that question now.

I'm going to ask you to deal with the whole issue of support and integration into Canadian society. This past year, Denmark put in place an integration act, which dealt with the issue of integration and social, financial, and other support to refugees who come there. Perhaps you can answer the question, is our government of the day doing a good job in the area of support? What are your personal opinions on integration?

Mr. Marty Dolin: It's interesting.

You're asking whether we are doing a good job of settlement. The answer is that NGOs that have contracts with the government are doing more and more with the provincial-federal agreements. The provinces are getting involved. In Manitoba, we have a very positive approach, compared to Europe. As a matter of fact, I and others from Canada have been invited to teach the Europeans how to get people involved, how to get refugees in places like Holland, where they rot in refugee centres for years, working and involved in society. We do a good job.

• 1135

The negative side is that very often the Government of Canada somehow sees us as their employees, and because they hold the purse strings, they think they can tell us how to do our job as NGOs. I'm sure this is as true of MCC as it is with Interfaith. This creates serious problems, because we have the staff, we are the professionals in the business, who know what we're doing, but very often we're working against government, which is telling us that from their perspective we should do it this way, we should do research this way, rather than listening to our experience. So consultations tend to be one-sided, but that's more a legislative problem than a bureaucratic problem, I think.

Mr. Timothy Wichert: Mr. Mark, when we signed an agreement with the government twenty years ago to do sponsorships, we weren't asking for government handouts. We wanted to provide the assistance ourselves. Our churches wanted to provide the assistance themselves. They wanted to put up the money to help refugees come and help them get integrated and resettled. Twenty years ago, within two years we brought in—across the country, not just Mennonites—about 60,000 southeast Asians. About half of those were privately sponsored. Now we're hovering around 3,000. Those are the kinds of frustrations our private groups are running into. So five years later we're trying to bring a person in. We're prepared to do our task. We're saying to the government, can you please do your task with the processing? As for the integration, at least with the private sponsorships, we'll do it.

As to the issue of numbers you referred to at the outset, the inland claims, this is the debate usually. The ones who come in and make asylum claims here—they get on the rusty boats, they cross the U.S. border, whatever—their numbers have been going up an average of 25,000 over the last few years. Now they have shot up to about 35,000 in the last year. Meanwhile, over the last eight years the overseas processing of refugees has gone down from 14,000 to about 7,000. It's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. The quotas have gone down for overseas processing, even as the pressures for people to come are still there. Desperate people look for desperate means. They want to get to a country of safety. So that's what they're doing. If we can't get them processed overseas, they're going to come here through other means.

That's why we're saying, let's try to improve the process overseas, put more resources into that if we need to, improve the process overseas, so that we have a viable process.

Mr. David Dandeneau: I can only speak from my personal experience. In 1980 my wife and I were involved with our parish, sponsoring a Laotian family. We had two children. We were expecting twins. We had a fairly large home, and so the parish group asked us if we could receive or sponsor the family in our home. It was a mother with seven children. We hesitated at the beginning, because it was quite a responsibility, but we never regretted that. We learned more, and as that experience showed me, it didn't really cost the government anything. It was individuals who brought the support. We learned much of their culture. They assisted us when the twins were born. The mother used to send some of her daughters down with food, and we were introduced to a whole new culture, new food.

Since that time, I would strongly support my tax dollars going to any kind of integration for people like that, because since then they have probably given ten times back to the government in their tax dollars, because they all have jobs, they have cars, they have houses, they have families. They are contributing greatly to our society. From that experience, I would definitely pay more for my taxes to encourage the Canadian government to open doors to immigration.

• 1140

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Thank you very much.

Perhaps since we're in Manitoba we'll give priority to....

I'm sorry.

[Translation]

Ms. Marjolaine Pelletier: I simply want to say that this can represent an invaluable experience for our college-level students. When international and Canadian students study side by side, both groups benefit from the experience, and Canadian students perhaps a little more. They gain some insight into new cultures and a window onto the world. Both sides benefits, but our Canadian students perhaps even more.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I was going to turn the floor over to Manitoba, but Yolande is signaling to me that she would like to say something.

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I have some questions for Ms. Pelletier and Mr. Dandeneau about the issues they discussed this morning, namely international students.

First of all, I'd like to thank you for coming here this morning to discuss this subject with us. You're the second group this morning to talk to us about international students. During the break, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral and I were saying how sorry we were that Mr. Ruest had to leave before we could talk further to him.

In our opinion, the problem you presented goes much deeper than that. Why are you obliged to fill your classrooms with international students? I'm not saying I have anything against international students, but I'm concerned that there may be a shortage of Francophone students in Manitoba. If that's the case, then we should look into this problem.

Obviously, this morning's topic is immigration. Couldn't Immigration Canada and the federal government do something to help provinces other than Quebec attract immigrants from Francophone countries?

Mr. David Dandeneau: You make a valid point when you mention problems in terms of the Franco-Manitoban population. We could be content with enrolling 500 students and saying that we are a small university or community college. However, this is unfair to Franco- Manitobans because we need a certain critical mass.

Even if we had 300 students and were satisfied with that figure, I don't think we should overlook the chance to get a global perspective. In my view, we are privileged to be in a minority situation. I say that because we function in both languages, which gives us some insight into our basic values and helps us to know who we are and why we are fighting for our language and culture. It makes us more attuned than the majority to international students and immigrants.

The students that we recruit, whether they hail from France, Africa, Senegal, Mali or elsewhere, all say that they were warmly received and that we are quick to understand them and quite sensitive to their needs. I believe the reason is our experience as a minority. This is surely an asset and makes the integration process easier. In return, our Manitoban students gain a window on the world.

• 1145

Ms. Marjolaine Pelletier: We can't overlook the fact that many students come from countries in which they experience hardship. Compared to these countries, Canada is a wealthy nation and can provide new students with new experiences. They arrive here full of hope. When they can, they do return to their native country, but often, they have no choice but to apply for permanent residence.

We need to appeal to the generosity of Canadians and open our doors to these students, just as we have opened our institutions and our society to them

Ms. Yolande Thibeault: I understand all of the reasons that you are giving me. I don't want to give you the impression that I'm opposed to your institution enrolling international students. That's not at all the case. On the contrary, I would like to see more international students enrolled in institutions across Canada. They bring with them a global perspective and some of these students could quite possibly help us broaden our own knowledge.

My concern is not international students. Rather, I'm concerned about the health of Manitoba's Francophone community. That's the point I really wanted to make.

Mr. David Dandeneau: We're doing well. Twenty years ago, our student population stood at approximately 300. Now it has swelled to around 1,000 students. We'd like to double that figure and we have the potential to accomplish this goal. Things are progressing well on that front. Each student recruited, even those in immersion schools, has the potential to create a home in which the number of Francophones will grow. Some of my relatives spoke virtually no French at all, but their children attended immersion classes and today, my children and their children speak French together. I'm convinced we're making up ground somewhere.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'd like to suggest to my colleagues who haven't spoken yet that you try to be concise and that the witnesses try to be brief in their answers, because otherwise we'll have next to no time to check out and have lunch before we restart at one o'clock. Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll keep this down to four quick questions for the presenters. First with respect to Mr. Singh, I'd like a clarification. I believe he's suggesting that sometimes, based on our history, we use a broad-brush approach to...and that by implication means we end up with people who are basically assumed guilty until proven innocent. I think that's something that permeates the system. Certainly I think we experience it with respect to visitors visas. I'd like a comment on how we can end that kind of subtle discrimination that's built-in and permeates the whole system.

To Marty, who makes a very good suggestion that if we only would resort to a system where the sponsoring agent—family member—takes responsibility, we could open our doors much wider. We would see Manitoba attracting many more immigrants because of the familial connection and not putting any great onus on the government in terms of support. Why in heaven's name aren't we doing that today when this government recognizes the need for immigration? Could you also apply the same model to visitors visas? We've got tremendous concerns about selective, subjective processes around visitors visas. Could we apply some responsibility on the part of the sponsoring family in terms of visitors visas?

To Tim, I think you've reiterated what many have said about the need for a major overhaul of the aspects in this bill pertaining to refugees. It sounds like we need to do a lot of amendments. If you had to pick one or two, what advice would you have for us?

To Shirley, I hear what you're saying in terms of the need to ensure that when we're addressing foreign credentials that we acknowledge the authority of the regulatory bodies in every province, but some have also suggested that some of those institutions have a built-in bias. We tend to close the doors to people who have legitimate interests and careers and background and training and education. We're losing those people, because they are getting accepted in the United States and other countries, which are just much more competitive about grabbing the best trained medical professionals around the world. Shouldn't we be doing more in terms of recognition of foreign credentials in every part of the country? And is there a role for the national government?

• 1150

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Time is such that each person should have no more than 30 seconds to answer, please.

Mr. Kewal Singh: Regarding the foreign offices, I think it is a necessity to check the credentials of the applicant who is applying for the visa.

I have seen from personal experience a gentleman who applied for a visa from the United Kingdom, who is there living in asylum from India. He was the foreign minister of his state. He has been, for the last two decades, denied again and again under the pressure of some democratic country.

What type of democracy do we have in this country when the people talking about the human rights of one group—maybe political, social, or economical—have been denied visas to this country? I think this is up to the Government of Canada, as well as to those offices, to use the democratic way to get them and talk to the people, wherever they go and whatever they have to say, because we are living in a democracy. And it is happening in Canada.

So many people from my own region have been declined. They have not been given a visa because they are political activists. I think right now we should have some good laws, which could protect those human rights activities—their rights—and should have the liberty to come and talk to the people in the international community.

Mr. Marty Dolin: Judy asked two questions so maybe I need 60 seconds.

The first question is why are we not allowing more people in. The reality is I think paragraph 14(2)(c) strikes me as something that the bureaucrats snuck in. There seems to be a culture, within the department, where they see themselves as Horatio at the bridge, protecting us against them, and somehow limiting the amount of them that are coming in to be part of us. The policy of the government seems to be to bring more in to reach that 1%—300,000 at least.

So I think there are inhibitors from within the department. That to me seems to be a problem, and it creates a problem of the more you allow by regulation, rather than putting it in legislation, the more that problem will exacerbate and continue. That's question number one.

Question number two is about visitors visas. Why are visitors visas that much of a problem? I think Tim referred to this to some extent. It's because people do not have access equally, overseas to inland, to the refugee process. The immigration officers overseas are fearful that people are applying for visitors visas in order to make an inland refugee claim in Canada, knowing that it is because they go before a more reasonable administrative body, the IRB, rather than the whim of an immigration officer overseas as to whether or not they get accepted or rejected.

There is not an equality between the two systems. I think this is one of the problems, particularly in posts like Islamabad, Riyadh, Damascus. I can name you posts—New Delhi—where people want to visit here, to come to a wedding, as was mentioned, etc., and are being turned down. Why? Because an immigration officer fears that these people are going to make a refugee claim. If they had equal access, and it was fair and equivalent overseas to what they are getting inland, there wouldn't be a problem. But that's it.

Mr. Timothy Wichert: I think the basis for any proper process is a fair hearing and a meaningful appeal.

So, first, the priority would be to create...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...to the Refugee Protection Division in part 2 of the act to determine refugee claims overseas.

Second would be to provide for a meaningful appeal, a review of those decisions overseas, either through the Refugee Appeal Division or the Immigration Appeal Division.

The third is to tighten up some of the definitions, especially around security. I think that's the simplest perhaps, tightening up the definitions.

Ms. Shirley Matile: There's no question that the regulation of professions is obviously a provincial jurisdiction.

I do believe that working with a provincial government, as we are here in Manitoba, helps to ensure an accountability of the regulatory bodies to the provincial bodies.

• 1155

In terms of the federal government's role, most provincial regulatory bodies do have a national umbrella organization that has been created, if for no other purpose than to ensure uniformity of standards, or attempt to ensure uniformity of standards, across the country. Certainly the federal government could play a role, as far as I could see, in working with those national bodies to ensure that the standards are as transparent and fair and open as they should and could be.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Could I just add a clarification?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): No, sorry. You can talk later, but we are way behind time.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, I will live up to your expectations. Since I was unfortunately absent for the first three presentations, I cannot comment on what was said and share my vision with you. As for Mr. Dandeneau's and Ms. Pelletier's presentation, as someone already said, it ties in with what we heard yesterday in Vancouver. Of course we share your concerns and we want assurances that the legislation will spell out clearly the legislator intent to promote this vision and approach. Aren't I being nice?

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Excellent. Are there any comments.

[English]

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have lots of questions, but I'm going to just focus on one area. Well, let me just say something. I share Judy's concerns about the regulatory aspect of the profession. I've been part of a profession, as a lay member, and I am concerned about the expectations that many people have coming to this country, in terms of their opportunities to practise their own field of training. So certainly better information to the post is required, but I think there still needs to be increased flexibility within a number of the professions and not in any way compromising standards.

My question is to Mr. Wichert and to Mr. Dolin. We have heard much about the distinction or the division between family class and economic classes who are coming. We have been advised that if we were to open up the family class, we would very much move towards a system like the United States has, where there are backlogs, waiting lists, whatever you want to call them, going back as far as 20 years. I guess what I would like to know from you both is how you would balance the need for inclusiveness—expanding the family's wish to reunite, to support one another, and to bring increased members over—as well as the very pressing need, as we heard from the Manitoba Business Council, and we heard from many others, for the need for those in the economic category. And I'm not saying there's not overlap between the two. But it is a real conundrum.

Mr. Marty Dolin: Well, in answer to your question, I'm not too sure what the concern is. I was down in Minneapolis last week. They seemed to be doing pretty well. I don't think the American policy is creating a problem down there. Economically they seem to be doing just fine, thank you. I think the reality is that before 1992, we were doing just fine, too. This was pointed out in 1913 when we brought in people to settle the prairies; we were doing fine.

I think the concern is about the demands on the system. What I'm suggesting, and I think Kenneth Zaifman suggested it very clearly, is if there were a contractual obligation of family members to take responsibility, there would be no burden to Canadian society. It's only a benefit. You have more people buying homes, starting businesses, creating jobs, buying furniture, shopping, paying taxes. In all these things, to me it's a benefit. I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier was right, and I think it's time we caught up.

Mr. Timothy Wichert: One of the problems we run into in the refugee sponsorship field is that we get probably half of our requests from family members here, who say we want assistance with our sister or our brother or our parents or somebody who doesn't fall technically within the family class—especially the brothers and sisters. They're on the line, in terms of the refugee claim. But we try to help them because it's basically the only process. If the family class were expanded to include brothers and sisters, for example, of any age, or other close family connections, we could free up a lot more sponsorships.

• 1200

But the other thing we notice on the private refugee sponsorship is the folks who are helping span the spectrum in terms of their qualifications. We have professionals down to labourers, and I think all of them come and make a contribution in their particular field in their particular sector. But when we're talking about sponsorship of refugees, we have the whole spectrum in terms of qualifications.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): Since you had only one question and Judy had four, go ahead.

Ms. Anita Neville: What I'm hearing you say is those who are not eligible under the family plans are using the refugee window to try to reunite families. Is that what you're saying?

Mr. Timothy Wichert: That's what we're finding, definitely.

Ms. Anita Neville: Okay, thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I'd like to make comment towards Marty Dolin primarily. It could be called “yes, but”.

A few days ago I read an article in the Toronto Star entitled “Canada Needs More Immigrants”—you in Winnipeg can be forgiven if you didn't see it. But I asked the question rhetorically, should we in Canada in the early 21st century repeat the Clifford Sifton policy of the late 19th century to increase immigration? The answer was a qualified yes.

I don't go along fully with what you're saying. First of all, speaking as an economist, you're never going to get a consensus on optimum population. The point Anita was making is that if we had free reign for siblings to come in, some of the countries from which we have a lot of immigrants might have six, and we would swamped. We would easily get up to 300,000, and there would be no room for economic immigrants, or else we'd have 20-year waiting lists like the Americans.

It's not true to say it's nothing but benefit. These people might come in and be productive, but we have transportation gridlock problems in Vancouver and Toronto. Additional population is good, but you have to provide the infrastructure. That might not be a problem in Winnipeg, but I can tell you it's a problem in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, and that's where most of the immigrants go.

So I'm a small “l” Liberal on immigration. I think we should have more immigration, not less, but you can't have an unlimited influx in huge numbers without having major infrastructure problems and without overwhelming the system.

Fundamentally—this is my last point, and I could phrase it as a question—having just come from Vancouver, the attitudes in Winnipeg are often very different from the attitudes in Vancouver, because Vancouver is closed in by sea and mountains, and there's a limit to what they perceive to be their permissible population growth, given traffic gridlock, the environment, and so on, whereas here you clearly want more immigrants, as many have testified, at least.

We cannot control and force immigrants to stay in one particular place, so I think the challenge from a Manitoba perspective and a Canadian perspective is how to provide incentives for these immigrants not to congregate in vast numbers in the three largest cities but to spread themselves out more evenly across the country. I'm not sure there's an easy answer to that question.

Mr. Marty Dolin: If I can respond, I don't think anybody was suggesting unlimited immigration. What we were talking about is expanding the family class to allow people who have ties, and particularly, there were also suggestions about regionalizing it.

You have federal-provincial agreements in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Quebec. If Quebec seems to be able to set different criteria to meet Quebec's needs, we could do that in Manitoba, which, as you point out, might be very different from Vancouver and Toronto. We have different needs that could be met here. For example, we have been sending people involved with SFM to Morocco to bring francophones to Manitoba who will come here and integrate into the francophone community and help do things. You can develop programs through provincial agreement with federal support in the bill.

One thing I want to throw in is that we're not just talking about the immigrants today hitting the ground running, be they family sponsored or whatever.

Two of my kids graduated from university, one from U of W, one from U of M, about four or five years ago. After going there for the graduation and looking at the people winning the science prizes, I would like to advise people here that they weren't named Smith or Jones. These are the second generation people who came here, very often with women at risk programs, or widows from wars, and they had children who were motivated to go to school and get an education, and who are making a significant contribution in this society.

• 1205

So if we want this society to build, I think one of the things you and I must agree on is the fact that we basically do not have enough people to meet the needs here in Manitoba, and I think—and we may disagree on it—in Canada, nationwide, economically and socially. Whatever the number we agree is optimum, whatever we're doing now in this bill is not being particularly helpful. Whatever we're doing now is not enough. That's my point.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John McCallum): I agree with that last comment, and with that, I'd remind my colleagues that we're due back in about 55 minutes, having checked out.

I'd like to thank all the witnesses very much for spending the time to come and talk to us today.

The meeting is adjourned.