CIMM Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, May 3, 2001

• 0909

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning, colleagues.

I wonder whether we could have a little discussion before we begin with our witnesses and have our members come in. John Herron has given notice to the clerk with regard to a motion he wants to put. Before I recognize the motion, could we have a little informal discussion? It relates to how we will proceed once we finish with our witnesses on Friday.

• 0910

It was my view that we would finish hearings on Friday. I've already asked the minister to appear on Tuesday morning. Arrangements have been made with CPAC and for a room for us to have a very good discussion with the minister, so that we can ask her some questions based on the testimony we've heard to date, and where the committee may be coming from. I have also asked the IRB to appear before the committee again, so that we can ask them some additional information based on the testimony we've heard.

It is my view that after the Tuesday—perhaps on Thursday—we would have a meeting of the committee for the purposes of having a little discussion among ourselves regarding what we've heard, what the big issues are, especially in light of having the minister and the department there on Tuesday. Then we can probably commence clause-by-clause the following Monday or Tuesday, which wouldn't be that far off from where John wants to go.

Rather than putting the motion, I thought I'd give you a little bit of information based on where I'm coming from, and where as a committee we can go. If that's the consensus of the committee, if that's a road map we think we can agree with, I think we can proceed on that basis.

John.

Mr. John Herron (Fundy—Royal, PC): First off, Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for the tenor you've had in your place throughout the discussion of this particular bill.

What I was concerned about, and the other opposition members can speak for themselves, is to make sure.... We spent a lot of taxpayers' money this week listening to Canadians across the country, and we'll be hearing witnesses as late as Friday afternoon. I want to make sure we will have sufficient time to be able to prepare the appropriate amendments to address the concerns we heard.

I want to put that motion forward in order to at least send a signal about where we are positioning ourselves. We want to have until Tuesday. It looks like that's essentially the agenda you're proposing right now—Tuesday, May 15. I don't think to ask for one working week to prepare amendments would be extraordinary.

I spoke to Minister Caplan about this just yesterday. She knew where I was coming from. She's in a hurry to get the bill through, but she's doing it in a constructive manner, as well. She wants to get on with it. I appreciate where she's coming from, so I will not move that motion. That will spell us the time for the debate, if we have consensus that we won't go forward until May 15. That would be my sense, but I'd like to at least hear from my other colleagues on that point.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): I appreciate your recommendation. I think that will be useful next week to have that opportunity to both hear from the minister and have a discussion among ourselves.

I would raise two other issues in that same context. I'd like to see whether there's a will among the committee to pursue the suggestion made by Joe Volpe yesterday to have some sort of a round table with department officials and experts from the groups we've heard from. We can have that exchange of ideas and try to sort through the obvious differences that exist and will no doubt continue to exist next week. I'm not going to move a motion at this point, but I'm wondering whether there's any possibility of that.

Secondly, when we get to clause-by-clause, is it possible for the committee to hire or employ an independent adviser to give us another opinion in terms of some of the amendments we might propose and to help us through this whole process?

I'm not experienced in doing this. I gather it's something that committees do from time to time, so I raise that as a possibility as well.

The Chair: With regard to that, I'll check with the clerk. I know that we have a couple of real able researchers who have done an awful lot of the work. But if we need to bring in some additional expertise, the question is who that might be. We would have to canvass. But that's a good idea. Leave it for me to do it.

• 0915

With regard to a round table, I like the idea, but I wonder who you would invite to sit at the round table and at which point. I think it's very important. Perhaps that could be something we might think of thereafter—once we have the minister and the department and the IRB come to us on Tuesday, and we have a little roundtable discussion ourselves. There are a whole host of issues, and we might want to discover for ourselves where we are coming from.

I have the sense that there is a lot of consensus from both sides of the aisle as to what those issues are and where we might be coming from. If we feel that might be useful—if not now, perhaps, then as we develop the regulations and once we know what the framework legislation might be—there could be a working group of committee and community, so to speak, to see how this whole new bill might work.

So I'm open to the idea. I think it's an excellent suggestion to do some innovative and creative things to make sure we get this right. Again, that could come as a discussion after the fact, once we decide for ourselves where we're going—how much consensus there is among the committee as to what kind of a bill we eventually will have.

Within the spirit of working to make sure that we have a good bill for all of Canada, Judy, both of those suggestions I think are good ones.

Inky or Madeleine, do you have any comments?

Mr. Inky Mark (Dauphin—Swan River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with you that next week we should have an opportunity to speak to the minister, as well as determine whether there's any will on the part of this committee to force change. I say that in a serious tone, because I've shepherded enough bills through the House to know how the system works. Even with a reprieve of one week, I question whether that's enough time to take care of all the amendments. I've been tabling amendments for the last three weeks already, and you've heard this past week there are major flaws in this bill. If this bill doesn't really change in its approach, the systemic problems are certainly not going to change for the next twenty years. So I look forward to the discussions.

The Chair: Let's not prejudge what may or may not come out of this particular committee. I know so far we've got a great working relationship. If all of us have the political will to move forward, so that we can improve the bill and make sure it's a bill we can all be proud of.... At the end of the day, I want the bill to be good legislation, so that Canadians in actual fact can see themselves in this bill, and so it really is a reflection of what we've been able to do as a country and where we need to go.

On that basis, John, I hear consensus.

Mr. John Herron: So I won't move my motion. But the spirit of the motion I understand is in the room toward Tuesday.

The Chair: Yes, we're all feeling it. Can't you feel it, John? I'm feeling it.

Mr. John Herron: Okay.

The Chair: Onward.

Technically, I should let you know that last night somebody broke into the Rogers' crew van and stole a couple of required items or equipment. So we won't have Rogers taping, at least for the first part of this meeting. That's unfortunate in a way. But it is being recorded. It is for the public record, as you know. Unfortunately, these things will happen. We create so much excitement when we come into a city that people just get carried away, I guess. Anyway, I thought I'd just let you know that.

Yesterday was a very good and hard day. We heard some tremendous testimony from a great number of witnesses who not only have given us some great input, but have really told their very personal stories—their best advice for those people who work in the immigration and refugee system, so to speak. We've heard a great number of witnesses.

I was very impressed, not only with their input and the passion with which they spoke, but also the hard work they do on a day-to-day basis to help new immigrants and refugees to this country. I thought I thanked them yesterday, but I want to thank them again.

It's in that same spirit of listening to you that I invite our witnesses appearing this morning and this afternoon. Your input is very much appreciated. Your experiences are very worthwhile and important for us to understand.

• 0920

You heard the discussion a couple of minutes ago as to what the committee and the government are trying to do with regard to this new bill. It's probably going to be the most important piece of legislation this Parliament will put forward in this session, because immigration and refugee protection is a very important moral, economic, and social issue. It's what this country is all about.

I don't have to tell you. You're the people on the front lines who greatly help us and this country.

I want to welcome the Refugee Lawyers Association of Ontario, the Centre for Refugee Studies, the Gahir Law Office, the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, Students in Limbo, and the Law Union of Ontario.

What I've told previous witnesses is we have your briefs in most cases. We would ask you to give us an overview of your brief within five to seven minutes so that we are afforded the opportunity to ask you some questions, which is the fun part of the meeting. Instead of listening to us all the time, we get to ask you some probing questions.

Having said that, I'll move quickly to Raoul Boulakia. Oh, he's not here. He hasn't arrived yet, so we'll move to the Centre for Refugee Studies, which is represented by Sharryn Aiken. Sharryn, welcome.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken (Centre for Refugee Studies): Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

With your permission I'd like to invite the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition to go first, as I mentioned to your staff, because I think my remarks will follow very well after their presentation.

The Chair: We'll hear from the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition, which is represented by Mary Jo Leddy, a member, as well as Suleyman Goven. Welcome, Mary Jo.

For any of the members who have not read her book, it's very much related to what we're doing here.

On my trip to Sudan the week before last, which is a story in itself, during the 30-hour flight back and forth I had an opportunity to read your book, Mary Jo, and I had tears in my eyes halfway across the ocean because of your stories. So welcome, Mary Jo. I know that you and I have had some discussions.

And welcome to Suleyman. I understand that you have a deeply felt story to tell us.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy (Member, Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition): Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, mesdames and messieurs, I speak to you this morning as a member of the Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition. This group has been in existence since 1992. We were formed to assist refugees who had been mistakenly rejected by the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Over these years we have gained considerable experience with the current legislation as well as with the daily practices and policies of Immigration Canada. Our report is based on that experience. We hope you have had time to read it. However, we know you're under severe time constraints, and we doubt this has been possible.

Our report indicates those clauses we support and those we do not. However, over and above these particular points, we want to say this to you today: please consider how this bill will drastically alter the fundamental values of this country. This report effectively seals the trend toward a two-tiered system of justice in this country, one system of justice for Canadian citizens and another system of justice for those who are not. We are concerned specifically about the second- and third-class legal status that is imposed on refugees who come to this country seeking protection.

Refugees in Canada live, struggle, and sometimes die under a separate system of justice. It is our very own system of apartheid. Immigration Canada operates as a state within a state in this country. Refugees have few of the legal safeguards enjoyed by Canadian citizens. Senior immigration officers overseas, at the border, and here at local offices act as prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. I assure you that I have seen this with my own eyes on a daily basis. Reasons for decisions need not be given. Consistent treatment is not required or practised.

• 0925

Bill C-11 as it is stated will only serve to barricade this state within a state even further, placing it outside the normal democratic and legal processes in this country. For example, refugees can be picked up at any time without a search warrant. They can be placed in detention centres, which need not follow any of the directives or practices of the normal prisons in this country. Women and children are thrown in with drug addicts.

Refugees are at the mercy of immigration enforcement, a subcontracted, private police force that has no watchdog. If refugees are mistreated by CSIS, they can complain to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, but this has no legal bearing on their immigration status. Those who do complain, and I have seen this, will find not justice but retribution.

Bill C-11 does not effectively address the terrorizing power that CSIS and immigration security have over refugees. If refugees are mistreated by immigration security, there is no watchdog and no way of addressing these injustices.

Our coalition has seen everyday how more and more refugees are being labelled refugees in an indiscriminate and arbitrary way. They have no way of removing this terrible label once it has been placed on them.

We are now convinced that terrorism is the new mask of racism. It is no longer politically correct to refuse somebody entrance into Canada because they are black, yellow, brown, or Jews, but it is quite acceptable to strip someone of almost all of their human rights because in one person's opinion they might be a terrorist.

This legislation is shaped by a desire to get at terrorism. However, legislation that is driven by fear almost always ends up legitimating arbitrary authority and the persecution of the innocent. As every lawyer knows, hard cases make bad law.

Just as the fear of communism after World War II blinded Canadian immigration officials to real war criminals who were entering the country, so too today many innocent people are suffering. Many people who need our protection are being turned away because of this fear of terrorism. One such person is the man on my right, Suleyman Goven. He was arbitrarily labelled a terrorist because he refused to work for CSIS. He complained to the Security Intelligence Review Committee and was completely vindicated. I have the report here. They said he was not a terrorist, that he had been mistreated by CSIS, his documents had been forged, and he should be landed immediately. That report was sidelined in the immigration department. He has been refused landed status. He could be deported.

• 0930

You must face this man, and you must hear him. Then you must face yourselves. You must face the shadow side of this legislation as it is now written. I believe we can do much better than this.

I'm going to ask Suleyman to speak now for himself.

The Chair: Suleyman.

Mr. Suleyman Goven (Member, Southern Ontario Sanctuary Coalition): Dear honourable members of the standing committee, I've been in Canada more than 10 years, but I am still a refugee because CSIS defined me as a local terrorist according to the Turkish regime. They did this because I wouldn't cooperate with them. They did this because, when they asked me to spy on my fellow Kurds, I wouldn't do that.

Isn't it too easy to label innocent people in a democratic society in such a way? Where are justice, human rights, and democracy? I'm appealing to you. Many questions can be asked.

Let me give you some background information about myself. I'm a Zaza Kurd from Dersim, part of Turkish Kurdistan, where my ancestors and over 70,000 Zaza Kurds were massacred by the Turkish regime in 1938. Because of my nationality and fate and as I was a local union leader, I was persecuted, imprisoned, and tortured by Turkish police after the September 12, 1980, military coup. I still have two black toes as a result of the torture.

I left Turkey on December 16, 1990, on a train. I had to leave a job I loved, a job as a mechanical engineer for the Turkish railway. I travelled across Europe and ended up in Ireland. My journey to hope would not have to come to an end because I met a nice Canadian in Ireland in 1991. The person I met told me that Canada was a great place to live, so I came here to make a refugee claim. I was granted Convention refugee status in March 1993.

When I arrived in Canada in April 1991, I had no place to go and no place to sleep. One year after my arrival, some of my friends and I established the Toronto Kurdish Community and Information Centre in order to help desperate and vulnerable newcomers to Canada in the same situation in which I had found myself in Europe before.

I found peace, physical protection, and hope, but that all changed dramatically in 1994. I was interrogated by CSIS, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, because they misinterpreted what was on my part law-abiding activities and alleged some guilt in providing a place for the Kurdish community to meet.

Since then, harassment, intimidation, and threats have become part of my daily life. For example, CSIS bugged my phone, took pictures of me, and followed me around. Other things happened. In 1996 some belongings were stolen from my home, and just before I gave my testimony before SIRC my birth certificate was stolen. It was also common practice for CSIS to question Kurds and even some Turks about me.

During the interview I had with CSIS in 1994—which I called an interrogation because it lasted eight hours—I was not given the opportunity to eat and I was under huge psychological pressure.

I did not bring any domestic conflict to Canada when I came, but trade relations between Turkey and Canada impact on other lives. CSIS is an instrument of international trade agreements. The Canadian government should make me an apology because of Immigration and CSIS wrongdoing.

• 0935

Based on the situation, the Canadian government should clarify their intentions with regard to business relations with the Turkish government on the one hand and suppressing dissident voices and oppressing refugee claimants on the other. People must recognize that refugee rights are human rights, especially if CSIS is violating human rights in Canada for the sake of harmonizing trade relations. Common belief holds that Canada is a neutral country and that it is one of the best countries in the world in which to live. However, in reality human rights abuses do occur, abuses which could mar Canada's prestige at home and abroad.

Current practices of Immigration Canada and CSIS have a huge effect on our lives. Being in limbo is tantamount to having the sword of Damocles over your life. This state of social policy turns us into second-class citizens when compared to other Canadians, who can enjoy basic human rights.

I cannot study and I cannot travel. I feel I am in an open prison with four walls. I haven't seen any members of my family in over 10 years, in particular my mother, who is sick. As a human being I am appealing to you.

Even though I was vindicated and cleared by the Turks, Immigration Canada did not act fairly. Instead, they followed the wrong path of CSIS, their twin brother. In fact, they forged a document in my file. I don't know if any of you read or saw the story in the Globe and Mail, covered by Andrew Mitrovica. It's here, dated April 28. It says “Immigration forged letter in refugee case, Rae says”. The story continues on May 1, 2001, with “Minister urged to probe false immigration papers”.

If they forged this document, God knows what else they forged or altered in my file. I have no confidence any more in Immigration Canada. This lunacy and this hypocrisy must be stopped. You're the only people who are elected and who can stop this, I'm telling you.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Suleyman. I'm sure we'll have some questions for you.

Now we'll go to Sharryn Aiken.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members.

I'm very glad that the Sanctuary Coalition and in particular Suleyman Goven had an opportunity to precede me.

With the human dimensions of this problem, what I'd like to do is focus in particular on a set of very concrete recommendations, which I proposed in my brief. In that regard, I would just mention at the outset that I'm associated with the Centre for Refugee Studies at York University, which as you may know was formally inaugurated in 1988 as an interdisciplinary research centre of York University. It's one of only two research centres in the northern hemisphere with an exclusive mandate to study and research all aspects of forced migration and refugee studies. Consistent with the nature of an academic centre, however, the views I present to you today are my own and a personal viewpoint and don't purport to represent the views of the centre as a whole.

For those of you who have had a chance to read my brief, you'll note that the brief is exclusively focused on security issues. That's because, although I personally feel that there are a number of positive recommendations contained in Bill C-11, there are some very disturbing elements with regard to national security and in particular terrorism in the new bill that indeed reinforce and actually extend provisions that were introduced in Bill C-86 almost a decade ago by a previous government. These concerns really deserve special highlighting, and it's for this reason I chose to focus on them exclusively.

• 0940

I want to as well preface my concrete recommendations with the observation that some thirty years after the October Crisis, there's quite wide consensus-certainly in the scholarly community-that in response to what has been described as a very modest terrorist threat, the proclamation of the War Measures Act was indeed an overreaction, an overreaction that gave police sweeping powers to arrest and detain anyone suspected of association with the Front de Libération du Québec

The use of these powers has been widely criticized, both at the time and certainly some thirty years later today. I'd like to draw a parallel between the fact that 30 years ago some four hundred people were summarily arrested and detained because of mere association with the FLQ and the fact that today we're seeing some four hundred refugees summarily—and indeed very often arbitrarily—either detained or left in limbo, as has been the case with Mr. Goven, on very similar grounds.

At least with regard to the October Crisis, I think we would all agree that there were some very serious concerns in Quebec at that time. Today, in response to this phenomenon known as international terrorism with Canada's counterterrorism strategy, we've seen the government move in directions that have resulted in serious encroachment on civil liberties.

I want in that regard to zero in on three specific elements of the bill. The first one relates to the references to “danger to the security of Canada” in Bill C-11. Those references mirror provisions in the current Immigration Act. The problem is that the danger to the security of Canada is not defined, not in the current Immigration Act, not in Bill C-11, and not according to the document the department has published; neither will it be defined in the proposed regulations.

The CSIS Act contains a very specific definition of security threat in section 2. What's particularly important about that definition is that it speaks of specific acts and activities that are proscribed. It has a saving clause at the end that specifically suggests that any activities of lawful protest and dissent are not included within the ambit of proscribed activity.

Certainly the CSIS Act itself has been the subject of criticism, but committee after committee in our own Parliament, from the Kelly committee to the Security Intelligence Review Committee itself in its annual reports, consistently recommend that the notion of security threat used in the Immigration Act should be consistent with the notion of security threat in the CSIS Act. It makes absolutely no sense to give CSIS officers wide powers of investigation in relation to security screening and have them use a different definition than exists in their own home statute.

Furthermore, the fact that this definition of security threat from the CSIS Act is not included in Bill C-11 means that the minister or her delegate can define security threats in whatever way they choose with no legislative or regulatory parameters. It leaves wide ambit for abuse, and I think Mr. Goven's case very well illustrates that point.

The recommendation is very specific and indeed very simple. All that needs to be done is that all references to danger to the security of Canada in Bill C-11 should be specifically defined in the same manner that exists in section 2 of the CSIS Act.

It's not a radical proposal. As I mentioned, committee after committee over the past decade has heard this very recommendation.

• 0945

I urge the committee to seriously consider this proposal, because it will go a long way to ensuring that innocent people are not victimized by an overzealous department, a department that is seeking to label people as terrorists only for association, only because they happen to frequent certain places, because they've been seen talking to certain people, because they've shown up at a protest in front of an embassy, because they subscribe to a particular set of periodicals. That's enough to brand someone a terrorist in this country. That is not the kind of democracy I think we all agree Canada should aspire to. Just define what we mean by a security threat. Define it in a way that's consistent with the CSIS Act.

That's the first recommendation I'd really like to highlight.

The Chair: Unfortunately, I'm going to have to ask you to move on more quickly, because you're already at eight minutes.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Sorry. Okay.

I will mention, then, just one more dimension of my brief, which is also, I think, a very simple proposal.

Bill C-11 proposes to strip permanent residents of the right to have the reasonableness of the minister's security opinion reviewed by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. As you will recall, SIRC was set up in the wake of the McDonald Commission, in the wake of very serious concerns about RCMP intelligence gathering and a commitment to ensure a civilian watchdog. I have heard the minister suggest there's nothing wrong in Bill C-11. After all, all refugees and permanent residents still have access to SIRC. In a way that's true. They can complain, as Mr. Goven did, but that's a discretionary mechanism. They're not guaranteed a right of review. It's up to the chair of SIRC to decide whether to pursue it. Furthermore, there's no stay of removal. It's merely a complaint, as though anyone could complain to any ombudsperson, apart, of course, for those who are immigrants.

So it's no substitute for an effective review of the basis of a security certificate. What we see in Bill C-11 is an increasing erosion of very basic due process rights, and my recommendation is, restore the right of access to the Security Intelligence Review Committee as a matter of automatic access, not just for permanent residents, but for everyone facing security screening. I'm proposing that because of the very serious concerns we have with this process.

The final point is to underscore the recommendations of the National Association of Women and the Law, which, as you know, is a non-profit feminist organization promoting equality for Canadian women. That association has spoken in its brief of concerns about new powers of detention. I think in the Immigration Act as it exists today there is more than sufficient basis upon which individuals who either pose some danger to Canada or represent a flight risk can be detained, and in fact, we've seen today women who have been in long-term detention in British Columbia under conditions that even attracted the concern of the special rapporteur on the situation of migrants on her last visit. My suggestion, in line with the National Association of Women and the Law's recommendation, is that Bill C-11's inclusion of new and wider powers for immigration officers to detain should be indeed eliminated.

I'll close there, and I look forward to addressing your questions in the round table.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Sharryn.

We will now go to Students in Limbo. Zahra.

Ms. Zahra Mohamed (Students in Limbo): Thank you.

My name is Zahra. I'm part of a group of refugee students who are in legal limbo. I'm going to be talking to you about legal limbo issues and how they're dealt with in Bill C-11.

I came to Canada in 1992 from Somalia, and I'm happy to report that after being in limbo for eight and a half years, I finally got landed last September. As a matter of fact, when I submitted the brief for Bill C-31 last summer, I wasn't landed. I'm not here to talk about my specific case, but rather to talk about the issues of legal limbo.

• 0950

My peers and I are thankful that we're protected from persecution and that Canada opened its doors to us, but feel we've been kept in limbo for too long. We've been deemed to be convention refugees by the IRB, but because we lack proper identity documents, a file has been lost, or other reasons, many of us still are waiting to get landed. Most of us left the countries where we born when we were quite young. Canada is the only country we consider to be our home. We're all patiently waiting to become Canadian citizens one day and consider ourselves to be Canadians-in-waiting. This, however, is turning out to be a very long journey. More recently, we have also been patiently waiting for the new bill and hoping that it would put an end to the limbo state. Yet Bill C-11 completely ignores the situation, and we feel ourselves lost again in the system.

The impacts of being in limbo include, but are not limited to, not having access to student loans. I was here yesterday and I heard some of the recommendations made. I'd like to say that we endorse this move 100%. However, the next step would be to make sure that all public scholarship programs, like the Millennium Scholarship and others, are made accessible to convention refugees too.

I turn to the inability to travel outside Canada of sponsored family members. Most of us left our family members in various refugee camps around the world and have not been able to see them for many years. These are parents and siblings who we are currently unable to sponsor. Knowing that we have managed to get refugee status here in Canada, yet are unable to travel to see them, causes tremendous emotional and psychological stress on us and on our families who are overseas. My understanding is that the department intends to give travel documents to some refugees, but not undocumented refugees. This committee should ensure that travel documents are given to all refugees, according to the international law obligations of Canada.

As to employment challenges, the limbo situation is epitomized by the fact that social insurance numbers for refugees start with nine. This could mean that employers think refugees are here temporarily. This fact and the fact that we have to renew employment authorization year after year simply mean that some refugees miss job offers or are laid off simply because immigration did not process employment authorizations on time. We propose that convention refugees should not be lumped together with temporary residents, in the sense of having the same type of social insurance number.

Imagine a life where you're uncertain whether you're here permanently, where you're separated from your family for many years, you don't even know whether you'd be able to see them at any point. The examples I've mentioned so far highlight some of the barriers that Canadians-in-waiting feel the bill needs to address. We would therefore like to propose the following.

Bill C-11 should clearly state how the issue of limbo will be dealt with. Ideally, refugees should be given permanent residence immediately upon the determination by the IRB. Identity documents should not be a requirement for landing, since identity issues are already dealt with during the IRB determination process, and I think this is duplication. Finally, an alternative would be that convention refugees be given similar rights to other permanent residents. They should be able to ask for student loans, obtain travel documents, and identity documents should be provided in accordance with the international law.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Zahra.

Now we go to the Law Union of Ontario, Paul Copeland.

Mr. Paul D. Copeland (Law Union of Ontario): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would indicate to you the material I brought along for this hearing. There's a bound volume with “Law Union of Ontario” at the top. There's a copy of my c.v., and a document entitled “Statements Made by Citizenship and Immigration Officials”.

I brought my c.v. mostly to show you how long I've been practising. I'm a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada and chair of the equity committee. On page three of the c.v. you'll find that in 1976 I was up talking to a parliamentary committee on the security issues under the immigration bill then being considered. It's interesting to hear the discussions today about how, in many ways, it is worse under the proposed legislation.

But I'm here to talk about only one issue, the issue of what we regard as automatic deportation for any landed immigrant who's convicted of a criminal offence where the person receives two years in jail. I'd like to take you very quickly through the brief. I appreciate that it only arrived this morning and you have not had a chance to read it, but I think some of the background in it will help you understand the issue.

• 0955

Prior to 1975, if someone was ordered deported, they had a right of appeal to what was then called the Immigration Appeal Board, and is now the Immigration Appeal Division, and the board had power to consider their case having regard to all of the circumstances of the case. What this meant was that the board examined the equities of the situation, for instance, ties to Canada, the seriousness of their criminality, and other aspects, such as maybe problems they would have in their home country.

In 1995, and perhaps probably 1994, there were two events in Toronto that were of serious consequence to immigration matters. There was the shooting of Miss Leimonis at the restaurant called Just Desserts in Toronto, and there was the killing of a police officer named Todd Baylis by a man named Clinton Gayle. The outcry in the media was that landed immigrants, or people who in fact had been ordered deported from Canada, were involved in these events and that the Immigration Act wasn't working.

What happened was that the government at that time managed to bring in a provision called the danger opinion. So rather than allowing people to have a right of appeal to the Immigration Appeal Board, you would now have a situation where a minister's delegate would decide that the person was a danger to Canada. And for a very long time nobody could get reasons for why that decision was made. I'll talk about that in a moment.

I take you to tab four of the material. There's some information there in regard to a man named Oneil Grant. Of the three people who were put on trial for the Just Desserts killing, two of them were Canadian citizens. Oneil Grant was a landed immigrant who had previously been ordered deported. He had won his appeal at the Immigration Appeal Board. His most serious criminality at that time was a break and enter. He was on a stay from the Immigration Appeal Board at the time that he was charged in the Just Desserts shooting. It was one of the factors that led to the danger opinion provisions of the act.

Oneil Grant was acquitted on that charge, but that is one of the bases on which they brought in the danger opinion.

The other one was Clinton Gayle. Clinton Gayle had been ordered deported. He had lost his immigration appeal. There is material in here—I'm not going to take you through it—from the trial transcript that talks about the situation of Clinton Gayle at the time.

What happened was Clinton Gayle was in custody after he was ordered deported and after he'd lost his appeal. He had about three detention reviews. He was then released, and the immigration department just stopped doing anything. The enforcement branch never ensured that he got his travel documents. He was still in Canada two years later when he was involved in the shooting of Todd Baylis. I might say he just lost his appeal, I think, at the end of last week. But it is not the Immigration Appeal Board's fault that Clinton Gayle was in Canada. It's the immigration enforcement branch's fault that he was in Canada.

Those two incidents led to the danger opinions and took away from many people their right to have a meaningful appeal as to the desirability of them to be allowed to remain in Canada.

Several years ago, because I was concerned about the danger opinions and how they were being used, I made an application for information from the immigration department. At tab three you'll see some of the statistics I got from the department about how often the danger opinion was being sought and how often it was being used. You'll see from the statistics that when they made the applications, in usually about 90%, sometimes a higher percentage, of the cases, they got a danger opinion.

What has happened since that time is there have been some cases in the Federal Court dealing with the danger opinion and the obligation to give reasons. The brief goes on to say that under the Williams decision you still couldn't get reasons. There was a decision in the Supreme Court in Baker v. Canada, which was not a danger opinion case, in which the Supreme Court of Canada—and I'll quote the words, which are from an immigration document—said:

It's now appropriate to recognize that in certain circumstances including when the decision has important significance for the individual, the duty of procedural fairness will require a written explanation for the decision. Reasons are required here given the profound importance of this decision to those affected.

• 1000

Notwithstanding that opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, Immigration Canada still refuses to give out reasons in danger opinions. But what has happened is that the Federal Court has been seeing through what the immigration department officials are doing, and they have been overturning many of those danger opinions. So now the immigration department says they don't want to use danger opinions—people are appealing them and winning, which is their major problem—so they're going to have a new provision, an automatic deportation if you're involved in serious criminality. And they define “serious criminality” as anybody who goes to jail goes to a federal prison and spends two years or more in jail.

One immigration department official has come before you, and one was interviewed by the Law Times. Both of them, René Mercier and Joan Atkinson, said no, we won't deport every long-term landed immigrant who goes to jail for two years; we'll have a process in the regulations and some anonymous bureaucrat will make a decision as to whether or not we initiate removal procedures. That will be where the long-term resident will have whatever equities there are in his case decided.

What they're saying to you, in my view, is they will make the decision that the Immigration Appeal Board makes in every other case.

Our position is that you should take the serious criminality out of the legislation. Let the Immigration Appeal Division deal with the cases.

I'm sorry to go on; I'm probably over time. I tried to get you some more information in order that you could make some informed decisions. I wrote to the department when I found that this bill was being reconsidered in early March, and asked them to give me information on the danger opinions. How many opinions are being granted? How often are they being granted? What percentage? I also asked them to tell me, just so I'd get it accurately, over the last ten years how many immigrants have been deported from Canada where their sentence was two years in jail or more.

I sent a copy of that correspondence to Mr. Lahaie and said maybe you should try to get this information for the committee. I can tell you I have not yet gotten the information. I've been in regular touch with the information coordinator at Immigration Canada. I last spoke to them on May 1, and I was told that the package was sent to the minister's office for approval of release of the information. So maybe that information is almost prepared. You should certainly see it before you make the decisions about this particular provision, and know how many people in the past this provision would have affected.

It is a due process issue, to use the words Ms. Aiken used, and I say to you that this provision, in my view, is unnecessary, unfair, and frankly un-Canadian. Even the Americans, with their law and order, high incarceration, and death penalty philosophy have not gone this far in their legislation.

I would ask you to remove the serious criminality provision and let the Immigration Appeal Division make decisions in these cases.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Paul. Yes, we intend to get that document and that response from the department. Thank you very much for bringing that to our attention.

We'll go to questions. Inky.

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

Let me thank you for taking the time to appear before us today. Many of your comments have reinforced how important changes need to be made in this bill.

In terms of the issue of determination of status, it just does not make sense to have refugees and immigrants come to this country and wait for decades to receive status. I think most Canadians would agree with that.

In regard to the whole issue of checks and balances, I know if you talk to the official side, the officials want more powers to make decisions. Yet on the other side of the coin, if we respect human rights we have to make sure that due process of law is carried out. I agree that we need watchdogs in the whole system. I think perhaps that's what's lacking. The whole idea that Security Intelligence Review Committee decisions have no weight, are not considered, I find doesn't make any sense. What's the point of reviewing anything if it has no weight and is not considered? That certainly needs to be addressed.

In fact, what I've done as an amendment to the bill is put in place an ombudsman provision. So what I would like to ask you is do you think that would help deal with anomalies in the bill, and the problems people experience, or do we need a reporting system in the bill as a more definitive check and balance?

• 1005

The Chair: How about we start with you, Paul? Thirty seconds or less on that.

Mr. Paul Copeland: The only part I want to comment on is the inability of SIRC to make final decisions. The Thompson decision was reached a number of years ago, and basically what it says is SIRC can make a decision and Immigration can disregard it, which is in my view a totally meaningless function. It certainly was not what the McDonald commission intended SIRC to be able to do. Now the way the legislation was drafted seems to come to that conclusion. I testified before parliamentary committees on this CSIS legislation and I was involved in the McDonald commission, and SIRC is an improvement. But to have SIRC with no powers to do anything at the end of the day is not a sufficient improvement.

The Chair: Mary Jo.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I am not a lawyer, so I defer to them on some of these questions. I was present at the SIRC hearing of Suleyman Goven for five solid weeks. There were six lawyers involved: two for CSIS, two for Mr. Goven, and two for the committee. There was the panel member, translators, whatever. It was an exhaustive investigation. It was totally disregarded.

In this bill the emphasis is that any complaint should go to the Federal Court. I simply do not believe, from what I saw, that a generalist judge at the Federal Court will be able, even remotely, to approximate the semblance of justice that the Security Intelligence Review Committee brought to bear on this. They are the specialists. They have access to documents. They know more or less better than anybody what's going on. I do not believe, for example, that a generalist federal judge would have caught out the forgeries that were unveiled in the case of Mr. Goven.

I personally appeal to you to reinstate SIRC as the legitimate avenue of complaint, not just for Canadians but for refugees. There's no two-tier system of justice. If SIRC works, it works for everybody, not just for Canadians.

The Chair: Thank you.

Sharryn.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I would just respond to Mr. Mark's suggestion about an ombudsperson. Certainly it's not a bad idea. The fact that right now individuals don't have recourse to any sort of system of complaint is problematic, but it won't solve the problem unless specific legislative measures are taken along the lines of what people are suggesting. After all, ombudspersons also don't have any enforcement capacity; they're only recommendations, which the government may chose to follow or not, which is why we need to address the serious flaws in the bill itself.

The Chair: Zahra.

Ms. Zahra Mohamed: We appreciate when individual MPs help out convention refugees, but this is a systemic problem and we hope it will be dealt with at that level. Thank you.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Hello, everyone. Thank you for coming this morning.

You know in the field of medicine, quite often one never learns as much as when one is confronted with case histories. I would like to thank Mr. Goven for agreeing to testify before the committee to share with us, not someone else's situation, but rather his own situation.

• 1010

Legislation is enacted for real people. We have been reading briefs and hearing from witnesses for some weeks now already, and it is clear that this bill contains enormous gaps, particularly in terms of everything dealing with the appeal procedure. I may be mistaken, but it is my feeling that the committee will in fact endeavour to ensure that Bill C-11, which will become a framework law for immigration, does contain some appeal procedure. In your presentation, you mentioned two-tiered justice. A two-tiered justice system is as worrisome as a two-tiered health care system.

One of you referred to definitions. There are very few definitions in Bill C-11. We have heard this comment a number of times. You stated that that which could violate Canada's security should be defined in the legislation. You proposed using the definition of security that is found in current legislation and that it be used in Bill C-11. Do you believe that the use of this definition could in fact specify the parameters of what we mean by security?

I must admit that the reference made to the events of October struck a chord in me, because everyone who lived through that experience in Quebec remembers very well the shameful measures that were taken. This is certainly not something that we would want to see in immigration legislation, neither in Quebec nor in Canada.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Goven, do you want to answer the questions?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Okay, maybe—

The Chair: No, the question was directed to Suleyman. I'm sorry, Madeleine wants Suleyman to respond to that particular question.

Mr. Suleyman Goven: When it comes to a definition of terrorism and a serious threat to Canada's security, it's really.... We are looking for real terrorists, not ordinary political refugees. I fall in that category. I'm an innocent person. I was labelled for many years. It's a double standard within the system when it comes to this definition. It has been proven that CSIS is an organization that doesn't go after real terrorists but goes after innocent people and harasses them. That's my response.

The Chair: Was it Sharryn who talked about the requirement—I mean in your submission—for a definition of CSIS, or to use a definition that CSIS has with regard to danger to security of Canada? Madeleine, would that help if Sharryn...?

Could you address that again, or maybe Paul or anyone, with regard to whether their definitions might be helpful in the bill?

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I'd like to actually perhaps—

The Chair: Thirty seconds or less.

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: Have I been long-winded?

The Chair: Yes.

• 1015

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: I'd like to just mention that in the international instrument, derogations from rights are only permitted when there's very clear evidence of a national emergency.

Indeed, a number of tests and parameters have been established in international jurisprudence. Consistent with those tests, a focus on prescribed acts and activity, which the CSIS act includes, would go a long way to addressing the inadequacies of Bill C-11—rather than mere association. Yes, I would underscore the importance of legislative definition that provides some guidance to officers on the front line.

The Chair: Mr. Copeland.

Mr. Paul Copeland: A couple of things. As far as I know, the Law Union of Ontario was almost the only group in English-speaking Canada to demonstrate against the invocation of the War Measures Act in 1970.

One of the problems with security is the time it takes. The cases drag on forever, and the people are left in limbo. Last March I finally concluded a case that started in 1985, where the client was dubbed—and found by SIRC and by the Federal Court of Appeal—to be likely to engage in violence in Canada. But he's still here, because at the end of the process, the Governor in Council decided it wasn't appropriate to remove him from Canada.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm sure that all members around this table, on this committee, believe that the Charter of Rights should apply to everyone on Canadian soil. I think we'll have to pay very serious attention to what all the witnesses have told us this morning. It compels us to find appropriate amendments.

I want to ask about specific areas for amendment. Mr. Goven, your personal situation, which you've described, and Mary Jo's illustration of the situation, beg the question: is there anything we can put in the law that will actually check the power of immigration officials?

You have just told us that Mr. Goven was finally vindicated through CSIS and SIRC, but yet the immigration department is still refusing to stop the deportation proceedings. Is it a cultural thing within the department, or can we actually deal with that in the law?

Related to that is the question of definitions around terrorism. Perhaps it would help if we deleted, under paragraph 34(1)(c), which says “engaging in terrorism”, and paragraph (f):

(f) being a member of an organization that there are reasonable grounds to believe engages, has engaged or will engage in acts referred to in paragraphs (a), (b) or (c).

My third question has to do with Sharryn's point about detention. Is it sufficient for us to delete subclause 55(3), or are there more provisions with respect to the new powers under this bill to detain without warrant?

The Chair: Okay, that's enough—I'm sorry, Judy. Three questions, that's going to take a little while.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: A quick last question to Paul—

The Chair: No. I've got three already, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It's a very important question because he's—

The Chair: They're all very important here.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: —referring to serious criminality, under clause 64. My question is, should we delete just that section, or the whole section—as other groups have recommended?

The Chair: That was my question, so thank you for asking it. That's okay.

Mary Jo, let's start on the subject of what we need in order to ensure that Immigration can't continue this once a person is vindicated by SIRC.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I'd like to leave the legal things to the two lawyers and just focus on the deeper question—there is a cultural question here.

The Chair: I know, but I've got to get some solutions. I'm already half an hour behind the timeline, and I've got people lined up until 4 o'clock.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: My point is simply this: you can legislate all you want, but if there's a subculture in the department running rampant outside the law, then the minimum you must do is not give more power to these people, not leave so much to regulations. You just cannot do this. The civil service in Immigration Canada is not civil; it is not in service.

The Chair: What can we put in the bill? Forget about the regulations. What do you want in the bill?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Let me go to the lawyer then.

• 1020

Ms. Sharryn Aiken: My brief specifically recommends that all references to terrorism, and membership in terrorist organizations, be deleted. The reason is that the provisions in the existing Immigration Act, and other provisions in Bill C-11, are more than adequate to address genuine threats to security, genuine criminals.

So yes, I do agree that this section should be omitted. I didn't flesh it out in my presentation due to lack of time, not due to lack of concern. I think it's a positive and concrete suggestion that could go a long way to addressing the concerns you've heard this morning.

One further thing we would underscore is the absolute imperative to ensure that children are not subject to detention. The existing bill does not really go far enough in ensuring that.

The Chair: Paul, with regard to the two-year sentence, you're talking about getting rid of that whole section.

Mr. Paul Copeland: Yes. When I came up here to testify, I did not examine the provisions regarding security, violating human or international rights, or organized criminality. Certainly in the previous bill, determinations of those issues were made before either an adjudicator or before the Security Intelligence Review Committee. But serious criminality has nothing to do with immigration; it's a different process. It's automatic. Once you get a sentence of two years or more, you're gone.

The Chair: Could you perhaps just tell us what some of the crimes are? It might be useful to the committee. We've heard two stories. One version says it's very difficult to get two years, so the bar is fairly high. Then we hear some people saying, well, getting two years doesn't take much at all—a credit card forgery charge might get you a two-year sentence.

So maybe now that we have a lawyer here who deals in this matter and has brought up the whole serious criminality thing, can we ask you: is two years too high, too low, what?

Mr. Paul Copeland: Well, it's not that it's too high or too low; it's too arbitrary. I'm happy to say that nowadays in Canada, most of the time it's hard to get sent to jail for two years. I've been practising criminal law for 34 years, and I'm vice-president of the Criminal Lawyers' Association. Generally speaking, you have to do some fairly serious things to get two years. But some things don't require that, and while they're serious, they may be a one-shot item.

One of the immigration officials said, well, we won't kick you out if it's a drinking and driving offence. Impaired driving causing death, impaired driving causing bodily harm likely to produce penitentiary sentences. I'm not disputing that that's appropriate. But that may be a one-time act by somebody who makes a serious mistake. Under this legislation, they're gone.

I have acted for clients who have received as much as ten years in jail for smuggling or importing cannabis. You wouldn't get that now. While the jail time is serious, the offence is not all that serious, in most people's view. It's the same thing with some of the sexual assault offences; they'll get you into the penitentiary system fairly easily.

The Chair: So you're saying that two years is too arbitrary.

Mr. Paul Copeland: Any cutoff is that just focuses on the sentence. One thing that would do is change the whole practice of criminal law for us, because we might have judges deciding to get rid of our clients. The judge might send a client to jail for two years when 18 months might have been appropriate. We'll also have people staying in jail awaiting their trial, in a pre-trial dead time, in order to avoid getting a two-year sentence. They can spend two years in jail and then get time served.

The Chair: Thank you.

Anita.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): I wonder if you would like to expand, Mary Jo, on your comment that terrorism is the new mask of racism. I was quite struck by that, and I would appreciate some comment.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I say that simply on the basis of experience. It's striking to me how many times Immigration says, “We can't deal with this, you might be a terrorist.” I ask, “What's the basis for this?” “Well, you know, the applicants are from this country”—mostly it's Arab countries they say that about. But that fact has no relevance whatsoever to the particulars of the individual cases.

• 1025

It just strikes me that the use of the word “terrorist”, and the way it's used, seems to justify everything. I think that's the reason, not just racism.

In the past, immigration officials used to treat Jewish people the same way—you could keep them out. You know the whole sad history of the Second World War. Nobody would ever say now that immigrants can't come in because they're Jews. But if you label people terrorists, they have no right to complain, they have no right to legal processes. Everything is legitimized once you use that word. That is atrocious. That is unacceptable.

I simply think these things keep reappearing with different masks. This is the new mask of racism, and we have to know that. I don't think we want that as a country. I really don't. Thank you.

The Chair: That's pretty strong language, Mary Jo. I hope we're not inferring anything. Perhaps I may still be naive or idealistic, having come to this country some 45 years ago, but I can't accept that we've got systemic racism, and that some people would use terrorism as an excuse for it.

I know you've just pointed out Suleyman's case: he was vindicated, but the system still failed him. That's what we're trying to get at, why the system failed. He was wrongly labelled a terrorist, and appealed, explaining why he wasn't. But he had to go through hell in order to prove that he wasn't. He was finally vindicated by SIRC, only to find that the immigration department still won't give him his damn paperwork. That's what's incredible about it.

I know you feel strongly about this, but in my naive way, it bothers me when I hear there's this new face of racism, and that Canadian citizens who hold authority in Immigration, in police forces, or in CSIS, would want to do this racist thing with intent. That's what I'm trying to tell you: it bothers me.

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: I don't want to say you're naive, Joe. I don't believe that.

I know what I know, what I see when I go into immigration offices. In many cases, when there's been a fluff-up on a file, when they've lost a file, the excuse becomes, “Well, he might be a terrorist, so we'd better take a look at this.”

That's a reason I've seen offered more and more in the last year, for ordinary cases and innocent people. It's a throw-away line to cover incompetence—that's what bothers me even more than the high-level stuff. It's just the throw-away line: “They might be terrorists, so that excuses our incompetence and delay.” If you don't believe me, I can give you the file.

The Chair: I believe you. Thank you.

John.

Mr. John Herron: I think one aspect of the hearings we've benefited from is that many of the officers from the parties were quite struck by the press releases for this bill. The releases said that Bill C-11 would give the Government of Canada the chance to get tough on criminals—oh yeah, and address immigration concerns as well.

So I think the tenor of this committee has been to brand the bill's intent more appropriately. But we also need to add substance to the bill as well.

I'd like to pursue two issues in particular. Mr. Goven, I actually saved that newspaper—though I confess other things on that headline attracted me as well.

When I read the article just now, I saw this is a computer-generated concern that Mr. Rae had flagged. Has Immigration corrected the file and put the appropriate call-in notice?

I'll put this on the record as well: when the immigration official responded in the interview, he said that Immigration doesn't forge documents, or use secret decoders or disappearing ink. That seems to be a very cavalier approach to something Mr. Rae had flagged. The proper existing document is still not in.

• 1030

Mr. Suleyman Goven: No, it's not in.

During the SIRC hearings I went to CIC at Etobicoke. I wrote a letter to the manager of CIC and asked for the copy of my original documents. They have never responded, in over two and a half years.

Also, when I was called in October 2000 for an interview, I showed the forged documents to the immigration officer handling my file, and I asked her, “Did your department take part in this forgery?” She said “Well, you are accusing CSIS and they are accusing you.” I said “This is not accusation. This is forgery.” And I asked her nicely if she would check if this call-in notice original is not in my file. She looked at this note, and she said “No”.

Whatever this is, this is forgery. The reason is that the original call-in notice was a long sheet—handwritten. The time and my address were changed on a computer-generated document.

Mr. John Herron: So I'm told, and that's why I wanted to flag it.

The only real public policy issue that I want to pursue is with the legalized limbo issue.

I almost look at this as yesterday's battle. If a refugee comes into Canada, they're established as a convention refugee and they didn't have documentation, I would say that to get to that stage the refugee board, Immigration Canada, has already said they know they don't have any documentation, so wouldn't we have to say you shouldn't have to go through every hurdle because of that different status at every single length?

So you don't have any special documentation as a convention refugee who entered Canada without the benefit of having documentation?

Ms. Zahra Mohamed: I will not speak about all cases; I'll speak about my own individual case. It took three years for my identity to be established. I think that's long enough for the identity issue to be dealt with.

I think for them to be asked to establish identity again during the application for landing is just redundancy.

Mr. John Herron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Well, just quickly—and John asked the question—the present bill says that once a person has been established to be a convention refugee, they'll be given status documents. Those status documents will allow that convention refugee person to travel and perhaps do other things.

The other thing this committee has heard and is looking at is why, once a person has been given status by the IRB, do we have to wait so long to give them landed status? Why don't we just move them from refugee status to landed status, and if there's a question of documentation still out there.... Perhaps a signed affidavit from a person like you, who's been here two or three years.... I mean, we accept signed affidavits for financial institutions and courts. Why wouldn't we accept you signing an affidavit saying you are who you say you are? Then we would get rid of that thing.

So there are a number of things that are either in the bill now, such as status documents and other things, and things that we, as a committee, are looking at to help the situation with regard to the people in limbo who are out there.... And we've heard from many of them.

Would those kinds of suggestions be very helpful to you? Some have even suggested—we don't have the exact numbers, whether it's 1,000, 5,000 people who are still out there—we could look at an amnesty with regard to moving that process along, as we tried to do with the Somalian people, as you know.

Would some of those initiatives be helpful to you and people like you?

Ms. Zahra Mohamed: In regard to the status document, it would not be applicable to most of the people in my community because they are undocumented. So we will not be getting status documents, and we will not be getting travelling documents based on that.

However, your second suggestion that identity issues are dealt with during the IRB hearing and that should be a basis for decisions for landing, I totally agree with that and we will support it 100%.

The Chair: Okay.

Lynne, followed by Anita.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich (Blackstrap, Canadian Alliance): I really like your third recommendation that a recording be made of all immigration security screening interviews and that this recording be retained until all appeals of any nature have been exhausted. I think that would be a real asset for your particular problem.

• 1035

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: Yes, that was our recommendation. It came out of the SIRC hearing and Suleyman Goven's case. I was at the CSIS interview in which he was propositioned, “You work for us and we will land you”. The CSIS officers disputed that, and I said it would be very simple if they would just record these interviews the way police record interviews, the way the IRB records all of its proceedings. It would settle a lot.

Mrs. Lynne Yelich: On camera?

Ms. Mary Jo Leddy: No, I think security interviews are in camera, but at least there should be a recording of them. It should not be left to notes that can then be retrofitted on computers to fit the story that somebody wants.

The Chair: Thank you, Lynne, and thank you Mary Jo for that.

Mr. Paul Copeland: Can I add one comment?

The Chair: Yes, sure.

Mr. Paul Copeland: You made a comment about how long it takes to get landed.

One of the problems in my experience with Immigration is that some of the offices are incompetent to the point that you can't get a reply from them for four months. Somebody in the minister's office the other day described the Etobicoke office as the black hole. I'll send letters, and for over four or five months I won't get a reply. I'll write to the minister's office, and sometimes I'm lucky if the minister's office replies.

Now, that is not a legislative matter, but you're dealing with a department that in many places is totally in chaos.

The Chair: The only thing I can tell you about that is that it's legislators and members of Parliament who are responsible to the people. I want names, times, dates, and believe me, I'll get you a bloody, damn answer from the minister's office or anybody else if I have to. So tell that to your colleagues, and if you run into problems....

I know that 50% of our work in members of Parliament's offices—we've become immigration officers in an awful lot of the cases—

Mr. Paul Copeland: No, I—

The Chair: —so we know what the heck you're going through, I can tell you.

Mr. Paul Copeland: Could I add one thing? I'm going to give to Mr. Lahaie copies of the correspondence that has gone to Immigration trying to get the statistical information that I suggested you need.

The Chair: Yes, I've followed up on that.

Anita finally, and then we have some....

Ms. Anita Neville: I have a question for Mr. Copeland.

You made a comment that you believed the two years is an arbitrary argument. I find that surprising, because lawyers who have appeared before us on Bill C-11, and it's my understanding with Bill C-31 before, asked for objective standards before the removal of permanent residents.

Mr. Paul Copeland: Offenders, in my view, should be determined by the immigration appeal division. They are the people who have some expertise in it. You actually have a hearing. You can present evidence. You get reasons. That's the basis on which, I think, you throw people out of Canada. And you should not say whether they'll go to jail for six months, for two years, or 10 years. It is not the seriousness of the criminality; there are a number of other factors.

The immigration officials who have spoken on this subject keep saying there will be regulations. Some faceless person somewhere in the bowels of the immigration department will take all of the things into consideration for long-term residents. That's not an appropriate place to deal with it. The appropriate place to deal with it is before the immigration appeals division.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you all. As you can tell, we've gone over, and that's because we've been very interested in the issues you've brought forward, including the personal ones, I might add, for Zahra and Mr. Goven. Sometimes, as I think Madeleine put it, one wants to hear how a piece of legislation or a law has affected individuals. I think your personal testimony has been courageous, and very frustrating and a little upsetting to a lot of us.

To people, again, on the front lines who are helping people like Zahra, you have to be commended.

And to the lawyers, who have to go through this each and every day—I know that it's part of their job—I understand that, from your experiences and from your testimony, you're teaching us what is good or bad about this piece of legislation.

Thank you so much for your input.

We'll move quickly to the next round, if we could.

• 1040

• 1041

The Chair: Colleagues, ladies and gentlemen, if we could get started, please....

I will call up the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, the Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators, and the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc., as well as Toronto City Council Working Group on Immigration and Refugee Issues.

First of all, my apologies for running late. We ran late yesterday. That's because most of the information we're getting is so good that the members feel compelled to ask more and more questions, and that's a good sign.

Please give us an overview of your brief within five or seven minutes, so that we can ask you some questions. Thank you very much in advance for giving us those briefs.

I'll start with Eugen Duvalko, from the Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society.

Eugen, welcome.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko (Executive Director, Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society): Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

The Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society is a non-profit community agency based in Toronto, although I think we draw on the Ukrainian community nationwide for support, input, guidance, and advice.

I think what we bring to this discussion is our experience in working directly with people who want to be immigrants and people who are immigrants. So we have quite a bit to say about our experience dealing with the immigration system, inland and overseas. Maybe I should also use the words “frustrations” or “challenges” in working within that system.

One of the first points I would like to stress is that I would like very much to see what regulations are being drawn up by the department, to have that included in part of the bigger picture before this bill is passed, or reviewed or studied, to see what is really on the minds of the drafters of legislation.

The Chair: They're on our website, by the way, as we speak. They've been there for two or three weeks.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: Yes, we have the notes to the regulations, but the exact formulations are not there.

• 1045

Since a lot of the guts of the Immigration Act are now being transferred to the regulation level, we're not sure what kind of creature we're going to get as an immigration system. Our society strongly recommends waiting for the regulations before working further with the bill, because there could be things in the regulations that should actually be in the legislation itself.

Our point of view is also that we would like to have something to say about the way the Department of Citizenship and Immigration delivers the immigration program. We're trying to work backwards and ask, what pieces of legislation help that or hinder that? How do we affect the culture or have an influence on the culture? Is this within the department? How do we have an influence on the quality of decision-making and on the decision-makers themselves?

I think the first point that presents itself to that is that we are very uneasy with clause 72, which introduces the requirement to get leave to question or challenge immigration decisions made overseas. The reasoning presented by the department is that it will make it consistent with the in-Canada requirements, and also, it would reduce the resources needed to challenge or to fight off these court challenges.

I view it from a different point of view, from the point of view of quality control. In the earlier panel, and I'm sure it has been repeated in other presentations and briefs, it has been said that we need a way of having greater accountability on the decision-makers who are presently overseas making decisions.

It was very enlightening reading the Auditor General's report of last year regarding the performance of the immigration department. There's a litany of inconsistencies, poor decisions, undertraining, underfunding, and insulation from accountability that occurs overseas.

One method—not a big stick—of obtaining accountability was to actually challenge the decision-makers in front of the federal courts. Introducing this leave requirement will make that ability to challenge and ask for quality much more difficult.

In our experience of challenging, I do not believe that people who have received negative decisions overseas willingly or frivolously undertake a court challenge. It's not an easy process. Just as it is onerous on the immigration department to defend itself against a challenge, it's as onerous, time-consuming, and frustrating for those who want to challenge. So it's not an easy mechanism, but it should be a mechanism that's still enshrined within the legislation.

I have read the few mentions of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in the press. I have not seen a reference of it in the legislation with notes on regulations. I am not sure where the department stands on that, whether they're wavering, and they may just forget about that system altogether. So we will be stripped of that ability to challenge the quality of decisions, and their decisions are poor in some case, frustratingly poor, and it's frustrating that applicants have to endure that arbitrariness and poor training that sometimes occurs. I don't need to go into examples, because that was covered well in the Auditor General's report.

That is probably one of a few ways of maintaining integrity of the system.

That brings us to the point of integrity. Integrity is one of the buzzwords that is used often in the motivation behind this new draft legislation. But it is integrity that's trying to benefit from people's fear of the immigration system. It's as though, well, the people will believe we have integrity because we have greater arbitrary rules.

• 1050

I think integrity is still in the system, but it has to contain respect for the system, respect for the quality of decisions, and a sense that the applicant is respected within the immigration system. Long delays, frivolous excuses, and this change in terminology from backlogs to inventory...a person's application is not a widget that you count as having to be counted. If you can, try to build into the legislation the ability to have the accountability.

The second point that I fear may have an unintended consequence is clause 40, regarding misrepresentation as a part of grounds for an inadmissibility class. At first reading, I was very pleased with the idea that if you lie on your application to get in, you should have some sanction toward it. But in thinking back to the poor quality of decisions that I have seen, not all....

I don't want to get back into this, because it's not a nightmare of a system. But there are cases that are very frustrating. We've heard examples this morning of where things go wrong, and I also have cases. Based on my experience in having to deal with immigration officials, I can foresee that in this inadmissibility class of misrepresentation, someone can be labelled as being inadmissible under this clause much too easily.

I have attended immigration interviews where I have been the translator. I've listened to an eager, skilled worker applicant trying to explain himself in English, but the language failed him or the translator failed him—or her, in other cases—and that immediately raised suspicion. Just because of the language barrier itself, the immigration officer became suspicious that the applicant was less than truthful. I can see that this inadmissibility clause would have been applied to them.

If the clause is to remain in the act, I would suggest that it should have a greater definition that is sensitive that, one, people do mistakes; two, omissions are not outright misrepresentation; and three, some cultural interpretation is required. Often, people in some countries answer a question with a question. That's not being evasive; that's how you discourse. Apply that to an immigration interviewer who is very pressed for time, pressed to make a decision, and it may go the wrong way. Unfortunately, we will lose the best and the brightest to other countries that do not limit themselves with such—

The Chair: Dr. Duvalko, I'm going to have to ask you to please wrap up.

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: You've chosen a wonderful point, because I am ready to wrap up.

Once again, what I do want to say is that when we anticipated the introduction of this bill, we were looking for vehicles within the legislation that will allow us to keep the immigration system more honest. We have heard plenty—and, on some grounds, justifiably so—about people trying to abuse the system. But we have to have a system that is also inherently good and integral on its on.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

From the Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators—that's what we probably all need after a week: some good physiotherapy—we have Susan Takahashi.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi (Executive Director, Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators): Thanks. Yes, we probably need a stretch break or something, at least to sit tall.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of committee. My name is Sue Glover Takahashi, and I'm the executive director of the Canadian Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators. This alliance is a federation of the 10 provincial physiotherapy regulators. Those are the provincial regulatory authorities that represent over 15,000 physiotherapists.

The regulators, in this case, are the provincially mandated organizations that are responsible for monitoring the qualifications and behaviour of physiotherapists in the self-regulatory model. As part of that mechanism, the alliance administers the national licensing exam and determines eligibility for Canadian-educated and non-Canadian-educated. It really is through a focus on the non-Canadian-educated piece that I want to share some of our experiences.

• 1055

Presently, as has been the practice over the last seven years, the eligibility requirements for the non-Canadian-educated are the same as for the Canadian-educated. The Alliance of Physiotherapy Regulators has worked really diligently to ensure that they have best practices of equity and accessibility.

One of the things I want to point out before we proceed is that the regulators have no authority, influence, or stake in supply and demand issues. Their job is around the readiness to practise and the ongoing readiness to practise of physiotherapists as competent health care practitioners.

We have submitted a brief, and we want to bring to you a couple of things. We believe the bill has some clearly positive aspects. We live a similar life in a regulatory community, and we completely appreciate the competing interests and the need for deliberation and checks and balances.

As I have sat here listening, I have empathized greatly with the variety of perspectives you are considering. There are three areas of concern that we want to bring to your attention on behalf of the alliance.

One of them is really the conceptual framework for Bill C-11. It is based on an assumption that immigrants who were professionals in their home countries will be satisfied with working in a related occupation if they're not qualified to be licensed in this country, Canada. Our experience in credentialling suggests that this may not be so.

What I know is that people don't think of themselves as human capital. We think of ourselves as people, with our stories. We're mothers, brothers, sisters, workers. What I know about the physiotherapists who come to me, unsuccessfully or successfully, is that their profession is part of them. It's not clothes they put on; it's an integral part of their identity. This notion of workers as human capital strikes a chord of inconsistency with the people I deal with on a day-to-day basis. I think we also heard some pretty compelling stories, as opposed to notions of human capital.

One of the things one needs to also consider is that, in the regulated professions, the notion of related work is conceptual more than practical, particularly in the health profession. In Canada, physiotherapists are autonomous practitioners with open referral. We look to ensure that the people who come to work in Canada can work in our environment. That doesn't make the education in the home country not appropriate for the home country; however, how education and health care are organized for a home country may not necessarily apply here. We've worked really hard to provide scaffolding and upgrading opportunities, but this notion of related skills may not be reasonable.

Our second concern is with this notion of the loss or potential loss of prior contact. Like my colleague here, I find it somewhat discomforting to not know what the regulations will look like. It's easy to say we'll deal with that in the regulations, but it's hard to ensure the inventory does add up.

What we know is that the alliance presently is not named in the old Immigration Act, so we have no vested interest in being named in the new act. That really is not our interest. Physiotherapists are not required to come to the alliance, yet what we see are those immigration offices that encourage it and/or require it. The encouraged and/or required link allows the prospective immigrant an opportunity to understand and link with resources in Canada before coming to Canada so they can make an informed decision.

The transparency issue is really important. If you think you're going to come here and work within days, and you sell what are your assets, leave your home country, and then find you need a course of study that takes a year and a half, something which, through our organization is available electronically and through correspondence.... We don't require people to be in Canada. This notion of related work is a problem, and this notion of prior access is an important one to us.

• 1100

The other issue we have a particular interest in and a particular point of view about is this notion of provincially mandated credential assessment. I did provide in my brief an example of how provincially mandated credentialling agencies and provincially mandated physiotherapy regulatory agencies can be looking at the same document and come to different conclusions. We risk, given the wording of that mandate, having two provincial regulatory authorities, in the same human rights case, defending their cases. To me this seems an odd predicament we might be putting our agencies into, and I'll tell you why.

When the credentialling agencies look at a document, they will tell you that they looked to see what the level of education is, how many years, and they will perhaps comment on the major area of practice. The person who gets credit for that education in the human capital model may or may not understand that the course content for physiotherapy was not validated for adequacy in the home country and equated to Canada. The problem then is ours, when in some countries across the world physiotherapists work as technicians, physical educators, physicians—how countries organize health is exceedingly varied.

There are three recommendations we want to bring to your attention. We believe there needs to be a reference to the regulatory agencies' role in public safety specifically in the act. The act is silent; it's probably inherent, but we think it needs to be explicit.

Under the issue of contact, early and direct contact is not only important, it's essential, because it's not only our choice, it's the choice of the immigrant. Let them decide if they want related work. The factor under adaptability would suggest that we need to know about this related issue.

The alliance works very closely with your immigration offices, and we are prepared to do what is requested or necessary to ensure ongoing communication to facilitate processes for prospective immigrants. What we know is that we have a significant shortage of physiotherapists in Canada. That is particularly true in remote and rural Canada, and that shortage is increasing. We want the right immigrants and we want them here happy and ready to work.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you. I'm sure we'll have some questions, because this whole notion of accreditation is a very big issue that we've heard about.

We'll now move to the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants. We have Jill Sparling and Warren Lloyd, and Don Gracey's in the back there. Welcome.

Jill and Warren.

Ms. Jill Sparling (President, Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning.

My name is Jill Sparling. I am the president of the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants, known by its acronym OPIC. We were established in 1991 as a voluntary professional organization to represent immigration consultants. We currently represent 200 members across Canada. Seated next to me is Warren Lloyd, who is our vice-president.

In our day jobs both Warren and I are practising immigration consultants. I have worked for the federal government for nearly 20 years, some of that time in a minister's office. The rest was spent as an immigration officer in various capacities. Warren has spent 27 years in immigration, working as a program manager at several visa offices, as well as being the foreign service liaison officer for the Ontario regional office.

We have provided to the clerk copies of the written submission that details our concerns with Bill C-11. But at this time, rather than go over ground and points that have already been raised by other groups, we would like to speak on the urgent need for the regulation of immigration consultants.

• 1105

OPIC believes that persons other than lawyers who hold themselves out to the public as immigration consultants should be regulated, and only those who are regulated should be allowed to practice the profession of immigration consultancy. Establishing a national regulatory framework for immigration consultants was the driving force behind the creation of our association and remains so today. We believe the case for regulation is compelling. We think there are too many people providing immigration consulting services who have insufficient knowledge of the applicable legislation, regulations, policies, procedures, and precedents to provide competent service to their clients. We think there are too many people who hold themselves out as consultants and engage in fraudulent practices, anything from overcharging to facilitating people-smuggling. There are people who hold themselves out as consultants who endanger Canadian security by facilitating the immigration of persons with criminal records or those who constitute a threat to the security of Canada.

These practices compromise the integrity and credibility of our immigration system. They undermine Canadians' rights to reasonable protection from criminals and security threats. They prey on people, namely immigrant applicants, who are vulnerable and least able to assert their rights.

The impact of incompetent or unscrupulous consultants is felt by individuals in several ways. An application or refugee claim may fail because it has been incompetently presented. Incompetent advice may result in the failure of applications of deserving people. People with little or no hope of success on the merits may be given false hope and may be charged large sums of money for an application that has no reasonable prospect of success. Yet there are no avenues of redress available to anyone who has been aggrieved by incompetent or fraudulent consultants. To put this in context, an immigration lawyer who is disbarred today for fraudulent practices or incompetence can hang out a shingle tomorrow as an immigration consultant and carry on as before. Someone who has had no training or experience whatsoever can hang out a shingle today as a consultant.

The 1976 act, in paragraph 114(1)(v), authorizes the federal cabinet to promulgate regulations requiring any person who is not a member of a provincial bar to obtain a licence from a prescribed authority in order to appear as paid counsel for any applicant before an adjudicator, the refugee division, or the appeal division. This authority has never been exercised. In 1990, the Canadian Bar Association recommended a self-governing regulatory regime for non-lawyer immigration consultants.

The ninth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration strongly recommended that immigration consultants be regulated within a professional, self-governing system. That report, interestingly enough, was titled “Immigration Consultants: It's Time to Act”, and the report was issued in December of 1995. No action was taken on its recommendations. The Senate Special Committee on Security and Intelligence in their January 1999 report recommended that consultants be regulated. Although the government responded officially to many of the recommendations of the committee, it didn't respond to that one.

Recently, in submissions to the Supreme Court of Canada, counsel for B.C., Ontario, Manitoba, and the Law Society of British Columbia argued for the regulation of immigration consultants. In essence, the British Columbia government indicated that if the federal government does not implement an effective regulatory scheme, the province will. Ontario's attorney general has indicated an intention to do the same thing.

We do not want a balkanized regulatory system for immigration consultants, one that varies from province to province or one where immigration consultants are regulated in some provinces, but not in others. Clause 91 of Bill C-11 gives the federal government all the authority that is needed to effect a national—and I mean national—self-governing regulatory scheme for consultants. Clause 91 allows the government to pass regulations to govern

who may or may not represent, advise or consult with a person who is the subject of a proceeding or application before the Minister, an officer or the Board.

That is the Immigration Appeal Board. We are pleased the clause is there, but our optimism is tempered by the fact that the government has had this power in the Immigration Act since 1976 and has yet to do anything about it.

As I said earlier, we were originally established to pursue national regulation, and in November 1999 members of OPIC and the other professional association for immigration consultants met with senior officials of CIC to press for action on the regulatory front. In September 2000 some of us met with the minister herself. Since then some progress has been achieved—and I emphasize the word “some”. At the instigation of CIC, the professional organizations established an arm's-length, non-share-capital, and not-for-profit corporation called the College of Immigration Practitioners of Canada to act as the legal entity for all dealings with the CIC on this project. It is anticipated that the college will metamorphose into the professional self-governing body when the details of the regulatory scheme are agreed to. A memorandum of understanding was executed between the college and CIC in February of 2000, and it commits both parties to work toward the establishment of a self-government regulatory scheme.

• 1110

I assume that CIC would have no problem releasing that memorandum of understanding to the committee.

Consultants from Humber College have been retained to develop a national occupation standard for immigration consultants, and Human Resources Development Canada has agreed to vet the final project. That occupational standard would define the experience, knowledge, skills, and judgment that would be required at a minimum for persons to be registered by the college. That occupation standard will be developed in consultation with stakeholders across Canada such as CIC, provincial governments, provincial law societies, consumers groups, and of course those who practise the profession.

The concept that CIC and the college have agreed to is a self-governing professional college that establishes standards for membership based on this national occupation standard. Only those persons who are members in good standing of the self-governing college would be eligible to represent clients for a fee with Citizenship and Immigration Canada and its various administrative tribunals.

The college has proposed already to CIC a complaints and disciplinary process, together with an enforceable code of conduct. A large number of members of the college—at least a third—would be appointed by government to protect consumers and the public interest generally. We are not establishing a regulatory monopoly. Any other regulatory body that comes along and satisfies CIC's requirement could also be endorsed as a regulatory body for immigration consultants.

To date, the entire cost of this exercise, which has not been insignificant, has been borne by the two professional associations through this college. While this may appear to you to be substantial progress, it has in fact been very painstaking and slow. I'm not going to go into the details today, but we feel like Sisyphus who rolled a stone to the top of the mountain, only to have it roll down on top of him again.

Despite our best efforts this project has lain dormant in CIC since at least November, with odd sputters for many months before that, while a series of events that demonstrate the crying need for regulations swirl around us. We met with CIC officials two weeks ago—again there had been a complete turnover in personnel—to try to get them going again. Without a solid and consistent commitment from CIC to this project at both the political and the bureaucratic levels, we risk losing once again the progress that has been made.

We think the project is a no-brainer. We think an effective regulatory regime will protect the public against incompetent and unscrupulous consultants. An effective regulatory regime will assist in achieving the objectives set in Bill C-11. The regime we propose does not raise federal-provincial jurisdictional issues, nor does it generate any liabilities for CIC. Given the potential to weed out fraud and incompetence through the system, we believe that the regulation of consultants will have a great positive impact on the integrity of our system.

We see no downsides except perhaps the political heat from those numbers of consultants who may not qualify. However, the level of political heat will attest to the effectiveness of the regulatory regime.

I'm here today on behalf of qualified, competent, and honest immigration consultants to urge this committee to recommend in the strongest possible terms that CIC proceed with the regulation of consultants and to give life to clause 91 without further delay.

I have one comment on clause 91. It currently reads that “The regulations may govern who may or may not represent”, and so on. We propose that this committee change the word “may” to “shall”.

Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Jill and Warren, for your excellent presentation.

I turn now to the Toronto City Council. We have David Miller, Rose Lee, and Julie Mathien with us today. Thank you very much for appearing, and we look forward to your comments and input.

Thank you, David.

Mr. David Miller (Chair, Working Group on Immigration and Refugee Issues, Toronto City Council): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Hello and welcome to Toronto.

[English]

I'm the city councillor for High Park in Toronto and the chair of the city's Working Group on Immigration and Refugee Issues. The position I'm presenting to you today is the official position of city council, which was adopted at our most recent council meeting, but in all intents is the same as the position or very similar to that we've taken on these issues in the past.

As mentioned, with me today are Rose Lee, who is the access and equity coordinator of our chief administrator's office; and Julie Mathien is the policy and development officer of the community and neighbourhood services department.

We do want to thank you on behalf of the city for the opportunity to respond to Bill C-11. Immigration is a critical issue to the city of Toronto, as we are the largest single receptor of new Canadians in the country.

There are full copies of our submission available in English and French. It looks like this. I want to thank the committee for doing the French translation and making it available.

• 1115

Because Toronto is a multilingual city, we have also translated the brief into nine languages for circulation to community media and organizations, and these copies are available for your administrator for your purposes.

The Chair: Thank you very much. That's very useful. We thank Toronto for doing that.

Mr. David Miller: You're welcome.

I'd like to summarize the city's recommendations. When you review Bill C-11 on a clause-by-clause basis, the city would urge you to consider the following points:

1. Include municipalities in clauses 3 and 10 to make provisions for the Government of Canada to consult directly with municipalities.

2. Establish a process to include municipalities as full participants in the development of regulations to the bill.

3. Include strategic directions in clause 3 to support the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees in local communities.

4. Make provision for the Government of Canada to take an active role in facilitating the economic integration of immigrants and refugees, including the City of Toronto specifically, in consultation with professional and technical associations, in order to accelerate the accreditation of foreign-trained professionals, and in increasing funding for skills upgrading and employment-related language training.

5. Make provision for the Government of Canada to reimburse municipalities' money—I'm sure you've heard this before—for public health expenditures related to refugees' social assistance and hostel costs, provided to refugees on social assistance in cases of sponsorship breakdown, and to support federal-provincial-municipal agreements to address the costs of these services. That's particularly important in Ontario at the current time because there isn't the appropriate provincial agreement.

6. Allow undocumented refugee children and youngsters under the age of 18, as authorized by the Ontario Education Act, to be admitted to school without authorization by Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

7. Provide assistance to the school boards in the Toronto district for language-training needs of immigrant and refugee children and adults.

8. Include gender as one of the grounds of persecution.

9. Maintain the status and rights of permanent residents as in the current Immigration Act.

10. Clarify detention on the basis of identity in consultation with non-governmental organizations to ensure genuine refugees without proper identity documents will not be prevented from making refugee claims.

I'm cognizant of your direction to be brief. I will do my best to be as brief as possible.

The City of Toronto has consulted with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the City of Vancouver, and we've also consulted with a number of other municipalities across the country. I have an advance copy of something called In Common Cause, which is the report of the city's dialogue of immigration and refugee issues in Canada. French copies are not yet available, but I will submit this to your administrator as well.

What is important from our perspective is that a number of municipalities across Canada agree that the services provided by municipalities enable immigrants and refugees to settle most successfully. So it's very important for municipalities to have a direct voice as policies develop—not just through the provinces—and also for the government to support us financially in those endeavours.

Toronto City Council has a number of positions on immigration and settlement in general, and the first, I think, is the most important.

Immigration brings social, cultural, and economic benefits to Toronto and to Canada. We're very proud of the diversity that is in Toronto. It's a very strong asset for us, and we have a goal, as a city, to build a socially cohesive and prosperous society, based on incorporating new Canadians into our makeup.

Our second key position is that the Government of Canada must consult with municipalities directly and formally in immigration and settlement policy and programs, because immigration predominantly in Canada is an urban phenomenon. We know what happens to people and what their needs are in a very meaningful and real way. If there is a proper mechanism for us to work directly with the Government of Canada—both at the civil service and at the political level—we will both benefit from better policies.

Our third point is that all orders of government share the responsibility of providing newcomers with support and services that help them settle, integrate, and fully participate in society.

• 1120

The City of Toronto has undertaken a number of initiatives to do our share. We have a strategic plan, policies, and programs on non-discrimination, human rights, access, and equity. We have grants programs, procurement initiatives, and economic development initiatives that help immigrant communities participate economically in the life of the city. Our departments integrate the needs of immigrants and refugees into their service planning and delivery; for example, by doing our best to have recreation programs available to everyone without too many fees. We also have an immigration settlement policy framework that provides strategic directions to city departments to address the settlement and integration of immigrants and refugees.

We feel that for the Government of Canada to carry out its share of the responsibility, there should be a mechanism to reimburse municipalities for the cost of services that are the direct consequence of federal immigration and refugee legislation. I gave the examples before. We feel these are things that directly result from immigration and refugees, and they should be the financial responsibility of the federal government.

The city supports an approach to immigration policy that facilitates settlement and integration and is consistent with democratic principles and human rights standards. Therefore, we support and commend the government for listening to recommendations that were made by a number of stakeholders during the consultation process on Bill C-31 and for incorporating those changes into Bill C-11.

The examples are set out in the summary of my remarks. They are: separation of the clauses and objectives for immigrants and refugees; facilitation of the immigration of economic class immigrants and the entry of skilled workers; expansion of family class immigrants; facilitation of family reunification, which is a terrifically important issue for the residents of Toronto; incorporation of the principle of the best interests of the child; and a faster and more efficient refugee determination system.

We do have some key concerns about the bill as currently drafted. I will just highlight those before I finish. First is the issue of consulting directly and collaborating with municipalities is not addressed in Bill C-11. We think that's a significant omission and is inconsistent with statements that have been made by the government in the recent past.

Second, settlement and integration. The bill doesn't indicate that the government will provide resources to facilitate this in local communities.

Third, the bill doesn't address the federal funding responsibility for the cost of public health, social assistance, and hostels, which is something that needs to be addressed.

Fourth, the provision on access to schools is not consistent with the Ontario Education Act, which basically says that if a child is here, he or she should be able to go to school. Let the immigration officials sort out whether or not the parents are here legally, but let the child get their education. We strongly believe that should be in the federal Immigration Act as well.

Lastly, there are a number of provisions the city is concerned about that do not support Canadian core values, democratic principles, and human rights standards; for example, the identity issue.

The city would like to say that we do support the positive proposals in Bill C-11, but we have a number of concerns. We hope that through the committee process, amendments can be made to address those concerns.

I appreciate your patience in listening to my remarks, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, David, Julie, and Rose, for being here and for giving us your presentation. As a former city councillor, I can understand. You were remarkably brief, as were the mayor and others from the Vancouver City Council when we met with them. Thank you very much for your input. I'm sure we're going to have some questions.

And that's what we're going to do. We're going to get to the questions. Inky.

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

I would like to thank you for appearing before us today.

What I'll do is make comments on what I've heard from this group of witnesses. Eugen, on the issue of framework legislation, I agree with you. It's always been one of my concerns that too much is left to regulation. Unfortunately, this committee is not a master of its own fate until more significant reform takes place on the way we deliberate. Unfortunately, most regulations will stay intact. Just because they're posted doesn't mean they're going to be changed.

• 1125

I agree with you that we need to remove all clauses calling for leave of appeal. That's really a basic democratic right, our right to due process.

On the issue of credentials, it's a problem around the world. In this country we probably have as many barriers interprovincially as we do internationally, perhaps more. As you know, professionals can't practise from province to province. I don't know how we'll get around that.

Perhaps we need a national initiative where we can sit down and talk about how we deal with international credentials. Even if professionals deal with a national issue on their own, I think they need to have a round table discussion with all of the professional groups and come up with some kind of basic standard that is acceptable in this country.

I agree with Jill that we do have problems when it comes to immigration consultation. We all know that. Another witness alluded to the January bar publication where even the lawyers made the same remark, that lawyers who are defunct should hang up a shingle and go into business doing immigration consultation. I don't know if it's the purview or mandate of this legislation to start managing a professional group. That is the purview of the provinces by and large. It's a difficult area to get into.

On the issue of municipalities and settlement, I totally agree. A number of us, including the chairman, myself, and Mr. Mahoney, started out in the municipalities. But I would take it back to the basics. Until the federal government recognizes the legitimacy of municipalities, we have a long way to go. I have put in an amendment to ensure that the minister has to consult with the municipalities on many points.

I'd like to close by making a remark on settlement. I believe the federal government has to take more responsibility for settlement. This year Denmark put in place an Integration Act. The federal state is working with the municipal level to help with settlement over a three-year period, and they're paying all the costs. At the same time they're determining where the refugees are settled in the country. We don't want all of them to come to this great city of Toronto. We want them to settle all over the country.

Again, I think municipalities have a huge role to play, because that's where all the action is. That's where all the people live and where the real living takes place.

Those are my comments, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: I don't think I heard a question there but rather agreement by Inky on all of your points. Obviously, you've made a great impact.

Jill, as to whether or not there really is a consensus amongst all communities, we've also heard that yes, it would be nice to have consultants registered and regulated, but under whose jurisdiction? Why should the federal government say, you are qualified and you are not, when in fact the whole industry doesn't seem to be in agreement?

Ms. Jill Sparling: We're not asking the federal government to make that determination. The federal government offered to help us set up a self-regulatory scheme.

We don't think it's solely a provincial issue. There's a case in the Supreme Court, which we appeared before on March 21, the Mangat appeal, and we think we could probably win that on the basis of paramountcy. Two provinces, B.C. and Ontario, have indicated that they're only trying to bring forth legislation because the federal government has not inhabited the field in the past 26 years.

Interestingly enough, five years ago OPIC banged on the door of the provinces and said regulate us. They said, no, go away, you're only federal legislation; we have no interest in you. At the Supreme Court both representatives of their attorneys general said they would back out the minute the federal government inhabits the field. They don't see any interjurisdictional problems. They don't see any issue of the federal government trying to squash them. They just want the issue solved, and they'd like it solved nationally.

• 1130

The Chair: I think the question was that there's no consensus amongst who should be granted this accreditation, whether or not you should go through a college. There are hundreds and hundreds of lawyers who think they might be qualified to be consultants. So forget about whose jurisdiction it is. We can sort that out.

To tell you the truth, I thought I would hear a lot more complaints from our witnesses as we've gone across the country about consultants. In fact, what I heard was that there's an awful lot of not-for-profit, good, well-meaning people representing innocent victims of our system and working out those problems. I didn't hear an awful lot of complaints about these so-called unscrupulous consultants, other than the ones who are overseas trying to ship a whole bunch of people in container ships and so on.

Mr. Warren Lloyd (Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants Inc.): Mr. Chairman, we certainly don't want to impinge on someone like Eugen from providing services to his community. That's not the idea. We want to eliminate unscrupulous and dishonest consultants from being able to practice.

All we're asking from the federal government is that CIC only deal with regulated consultants, that they don't deal with every Tom, Dick, and Harry who comes along and says, I'm a consultant. That will cut out the people over which Canada doesn't have any control. After all, if the RCMP can't come along and put their hand on your shoulder, we don't have any control.

The Chair: Madame Thibeault.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The chairman looks tired. I will make my comments in French but we have translation.

The Chair: I just need some more juice.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I thank all of you for being here. We heard....

[Translation]

Pardon me. That is assimilation at work. You have just witnessed the terrible—

Thank you for your testimony.

We have heard from a great number of witnesses, and a certain number of your concerns have already been brought up before the committee. Since the chair is tired and we are already falling behind in our schedule, I will only ask two questions which, in my opinion, deal with new subjects, that is to say everything that deals with regulating consulting services organizations.

It is my opinion that any legislation must ensure a fair treatment for all persons to which it applies. Without a doubt immigrants and refugees are vulnerable as soon as they arrive in a new environment. Even the brightest ones are vulnerable. I fully understand your concerns.

You referred, I believe, to the person who should ideally be responsible for establishing standards. For a long time I was a member of a professional organization and I know that it is not an easy task. Therefore, I would like you to tell us quickly what you think about this.

My second question is for Mr. Miller. Your presentation was very well organized. I imagine that that is how the City of Toronto is managed.

You made the suggestion that municipalities be named in the legislation. I fully understand your needs. Everyone knows that municipalities are creatures of provinces. Often times very beautiful creatures. In cases where there are agreements between the federal government and the provinces, as is the case with Quebec, Manitoba, and perhaps other provinces, would it not be appropriate that this need for recognition go through the provinces?

There you are Mr. Chairman, those are my two questions.

[English]

The Chair: Jill, on who should set the standards for work.

Mr. Warren Lloyd: Thank you.

[Translation]

I apologize, however I cannot answer you in French.

[English]

My French is not quite fluent enough to respond to you in French.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: You might be surprised if you gave it a try. However we are in a rush. Perhaps tomorrow?

Mr. Warren Lloyd: Yes, fine.

[English]

We agree that the establishment of a standard is critical and for that reason we've been in negotiation with the HRDC, the federal department. We're going to hire a consultant from Humber College to develop a standard. We're going to consult with every interested party—the lawyers, the community groups, the provinces, the federal department—in order to establish a standard that is acceptable, or probably a compromise standard that's roughly acceptable, to everyone. We desperately feel that unless we have this kind of standard, unless the government has some means of refusing to deal with people who don't meet the standard, as you say, honourable people will continue to be victimized.

• 1135

So we're very committed to establishing a very fair standard. It's not going to be us that establishes the standard. We're going to throw it out to a private consultant, through a consultative process, to establish a standard.

The Chair: It's very helpful that you're working towards the standard.

David, with regard to the question.

Mr. David Miller: Yes, thank you, and thank you very much for the question. I also apologize for not replying in French. Despite growing up in Ottawa, my French seems to have vanished.

Your point is quite fair. Quebec and Ontario in some ways face a different situation because of the relationship between the federal and provincial governments. And there are mechanisms in Quebec and Manitoba, and there was one once in B.C.

The fundamental problem we face, though, is that the federal government as an institution relies on the constitutional fact that cities are a creature of the province to ignore us. It's silly. The federal government has declared grain elevators to be in the national interest, and I think that's a good thing. Grain elevators are important. But on immigration issues, Toronto is the place that gets the most immigrants. So for us to not be able to speak to the federal government does not act in the best interests of anyone.

The Chair: If you want to speak, you can do it here.

Mr. David Miller: I'm speaking to you, yes, but as a supplicant. I'll give you some examples. It's exacerbated in our case because the provincial government is not particularly interested in immigration issues and has I think, in some ways, and I don't know if it's deliberate or not, frustrated any attempts to deal with these issues properly.

I'll give you a little example. There was a wave of Roma a year or two ago. The federal government at a bureaucratic level knew about six months ahead of time from things that were happening that this was likely to happen. Toronto knew when people showed up in our shelters who were Roma. If we had six months' notice, we could have worked with organizations like the equivalent of Eugen's from the Ukrainian community. With the Roma community we could have given them grants. We could have been incredibly instrumental with our money in helping these people integrate, but because everything has to go through the province, that didn't happen.

I think it's time for the federal government to say immigration is such an important issue that we're going to speak directly where we need to—and maybe in Montreal they don't—with the cities, and we think this is so important that we're going to take that step. If it means declaring Toronto to be an item of national interest, like a grain elevator, please do it.

The Chair: You should hear what people say about Toronto when we're in other parts of the country.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chair: I want to let you know that I'm not one of those people who doesn't like Toronto. In fact, I just live down the road from you.

I wonder if I could, as a prerogative of the chair, pursue this, because I'm the only Ontario member sitting here today although I know yesterday we had some Toronto members and so on. I want to pursue this question, which Madeleine addressed, because I think it's very important.

I should tell you, Dave, and I'm perhaps very frustrated about it, that Ontario doesn't have a nominee agreement with the federal government. I find this incredibly irresponsible, because what we heard in Manitoba and what we heard in Vancouver, and what we will hear in Quebec, I'm sure, is that where the federal and provincial governments in fact are working out some of the issues around money, settlement planning, and so on is at that level.

So the resources may very well be there, but where you don't have a provincial government that is prepared to take immigration as seriously as they should and yet they keep talking to us saying, send us the money, don't talk to the municipalities, that's the last thing we want you to do.... They say, talk to us because the social union says give the province the money and then we may give it to the municipalities to deliver some of the services.

So I have a question too. I think you need to talk to the province and say, get an agreement with the federal government on immigration. We're missing out on the investor immigrant program as a way of attracting some very good capital to businesses in all of Ontario and specifically in Toronto. Have you made those representations to the province?

• 1140

I would agree that administratively there are probably ways that the federal government should dialogue with municipalities, as we do on infrastructure programs, because at the end of the day, you have to deliver. If I could get rid of provincial governments, I would do that, and therefore only deal with the federal and municipal governments. That would even be better. That's ultimate efficiency.

But David, you talked about needing more resources for social assistance, public health, and so on. The last time I recollect or heard, those kinds of moneys are already being transferred from the federal government to the provincial governments on per capita grants for education, for post-secondary education, for health, for all kinds of things. Maybe you can tell us where the money is not getting to you.

We transfer it to the province. The province is supposed to transfer it to you. If there's a deficiency there, maybe you can quantify it or give us some information so that we in fact can take it back to our federal minister and government to see what additional assistance should be brought to the municipality.

Mr. David Miller: I appreciate those questions, Mr. Chair. I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's an English comedy group that I'm quite fond of, called Monty Python, and in one of their skits, one of the gentlemen says, I've learned from my mistakes, and I can repeat them almost perfectly. I think what I'm here to ask you is to learn from your mistakes and not repeat them.

On social housing, the federal government spent a lot of time negotiating with the Province of Ontario to download. The money has not flowed through, and the province plays a shell game. I can say a lot of mean, nasty things about the province on this issue. I won't waste your time. But the fact is—

The Chair: Please do.

Mr. David Miller: The fact is, they've now downloaded social housing to us, and it's all a fraud and a sham. I don't know the numbers off the top of my head, but I think they downloaded it with $11 million of funding for capital repairs when the need is $100 million. It's your money that they're playing with.

They say it's in this pot for rent supplements. You discover none of it was spent—none, not a penny. I think it's $50 million of your money that wasn't spent.

The same thing is happening in immigration matters. Our pressures and costs are in the range of $19.4 million annually for social assistance to refugees; probably $1.4 million for public health on tuberculosis; and about $4.3 million for shelter. Those are costs the province does not pay that the city pays directly.

When I say that, I must say that we are delighted to have immigrants and refugees, and we are happy to pay that money to support them. But when immigrants successfully integrate into an economy, they pay income tax, which goes to you and the province. So you have this bizarre dysfunction that we're paying the costs, and the money doesn't come.

You're quite right, Mr. Chair, it should come. I think perhaps the answer is that where there isn't an agreement with the province, the federal government should say, we will speak to the places where the immigrants go, and in the case of Ontario, that's the cities.

The Chair: I like that.

John.

Mr. John Herron: There's one comment that I would like to make. I think it is admirable what the Organization of Professional Immigration Consultants wants to do, because we don't want to have a situation where we have charlatans that would take advantage of individuals.

Having said that, in the simplicity of government, we all filled out our income tax returns just recently, and it bothers me that more often than not, more Canadians actually get someone to prepare their own tax forms. So they need someone else to deal with their own government.

Sometimes it bothers me that we need individuals to play a role as facilitator to deal with our own government because our law has become too complex. Maybe that's just the way it has to be, but I'd like to send that particular signal out. That was more of a comment.

• 1145

With respect to our provincial government cousins in that regard, I would like to point out that, as a committee, we didn't extend a direct invitation to provincial government to participate in these particular hearings. In the provincial government's defence, I would like to suggest that we don't necessarily overly attack them, given that we did not make a direct invitation to the provincial government to participate at this particular forum.

This is a massive problem for the major urban centres, because they really are the receptor and the beneficiary of the immigration policy that we've had in the country. So I would ask Mr. Miller, is there anything that would preclude the federal government now from giving you a heads up with respect to that Roma situation? There's nothing that prevented that from occurring, so is that just a matter of due diligence versus the fact that we don't necessarily have anything enshrined in the law?

Mr. David Miller: Thank you for that question. I think it's a very fair one.

Really, the problem we would see is a structural one because of this relationship where you have to relate through the province. The entire bureaucratic structure is set up to do that, and what we're asking for, as I think has been recommended two iterations ago in the consultations, is for the municipalities to have a seat at the table. That's all. We're using that language, so maybe the structure will be a bureaucratic one. Maybe it means we meet quarterly. I don't know, but you need the formality of it, otherwise it won't happen. It didn't happen because there's no formal structure for it to happen.

There are things going on all the time. We can tell your civil servants all sorts of interesting things they'd like to know if there is a regular mechanism for it to happen.

Mr. John Herron: I think Mr. Miller utilized a very good example here with respect to this Roma issue. I don't know if anything would be wrong with the federal government today in this situation to be able to write a letter out of professional courtesy, out at the Department of Immigration, when they see something like that, saying, “Dear Province of Ontario”, cc Toronto.... I think that's more a matter of bureaucratic mentality than necessarily an issue with respect to the bill.

Mr. David Miller: I hear what you're saying. We would disagree a little bit, because without a formal mechanism, that doesn't seem to happen. Without a formal mechanism, you won't hear from us. Somewhere there will be a piece of paper in somebody's in-basket, but they won't realize that there's incredibly important news from Toronto about access to professions or something that needs to be taken into account. We feel that the formality will result in an effective relationship.

Yes, of course, somebody could copy us on a letter, but from a practical point of view, we don't think that will resolve the problem.

The Chair: Good. Thank you.

Judy, then Yolande and Anita.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson. I have two questions, one to David and one to Eugen. I'm going to talk very fast to get it all in. Maybe I could suggest that we skip lunch in order to have more time?

The Chair: No.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, I thought I'd try.

The Chair: We practically did that yesterday. So, no.

A voice: We're fine. Don't worry about it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: First, to Eugen, you brought some new issues to the table, so I think we have to ask about them. One is the question of allowing appeals to the refugee appeal division from overseas decisions of rejection. I think that was one issue you raised.

The second one is the question of this new category of inadmissibility for misrepresentation. My understanding—and I seek clarification—is that with respect to the first, you would probably recommend that we amend to allow for appeals from overseas. With respect to inadmissibility for misrepresentation, should we be deleting that section, which I believe is clause 40 of the act?

The third part of my question is, as an MP, I deal with more problems, frustrating difficulties, from the post in Ukraine than probably anywhere else. Is that a result of administration problems in that post, or a bias in the system, or our focus on economics and skills versus family?

The Chair: Judy, I think we should send you to Kiev to find out exactly what the problem is.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Okay, good.

The Chair: Do you want to go?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'd love to.

Mr. David Miller: The city would be happy to accompany you.

• 1150

A voice: That's what I'm saying.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll turn to my second question.

I think it's very important for us to hear from the City of Toronto about some of the enforcement provisions of this bill. If you're the place with the most immigrants, you're the place that's going to feel the impact the most. You've taken a pretty clear position in your brief about upholding the Charter of Rights and preserving the status and rights of permanent residents. Do you support provisions like clause 64, which allows for deportation if someone is charged with a two-year sentence under these provisions of serious criminality, even if the person is a long-term permanent resident? The reason I'm asking this is that I think we're going to hear, perhaps from departmental officials, that this is necessary because a place like Toronto must have a problem and we have to help you fix it. Is it a problem?

My final point is on settlement. In your province, this has become a real political football. Your Conservative premier has played blackmail around the issues of settlement. How do we sort out this mess, and what role should the federal government be playing in terms of sorting out this mess and showing some leadership?

The Chair: Only someone from the NDP could say she's going to ask two questions and then end up with eight. Let me try to get through this, to two questions.

Eugen, on the question of overseas....

Mr. Eugen Duvalko: As we mentioned earlier on the Auditor General's report—and I think we've experienced it—you do tend to develop a siege mentality sometimes, or you see a siege mentality in some of these visa posts. I think Kiev is suffering through that right now. They are the only ones on the defence against fraud, the Russian mafia, and so forth, to the detriment that mothers and grandmothers can't visit their children or grandchildren. In Canada, there's no longer the benefit of doubt. If you read the newsletters that the Kiev post issues irregularly, their main phobias are fraud, misinterpretation, misunderstanding.

To the extent that the Kiev office is processing visa immigrant applications, that has speeded up recently, and we are pleased with that. It's becoming more of an attractive place to submit a visa. But that is an administration where there are people with an enforcement mentality: they are sent to select and accept immigrants. I think they will demonstrate that bias in their daily work. Kiev's not an easy place to live, and Kiev's not an easy place to work right now. At that point, it starts to affect the level of work and the quality of decisions.

What I did want to leave the greatest impression of is that our strong recommendation is to remove that extra leave requirement for the judicial review. Keep it at least at the current level, so that if you feel something has been very wrong in an overseas decision, you can take it to court. Extra leave would just insulate and would not affect accountability.

The Chair: Thank you, Eugen.

David, go ahead on deportation, as well as the settlement issue.

Mr. David Miller: The City of Toronto doesn't have an official position on the deportation issue, and I would have to say there would be divergent views at council. My personal view would support those of Mr. Copeland and Ms. Aiken, who spoke before. My background isn't that of a lawyer, but I think it's quite an arbitrary way to deal with that issue personally—but I'm not speaking on behalf of council.

With respect to the issue of the province and the money, I would like to see the federal government take some real leadership. The federal government has objectives with respect to immigration and settlement. As I understand the objectives, they include facilitating the integration of newcomers successfully to Canada. If you see a provincial government like ours not sharing those objectives, I think it's incumbent on you to act strongly to ensure those objectives are met.

In our case, of course, we believe that you can ensure they're met by working with us. The government, however, needs to take active steps to ensure the money flowing to the province is actually used for the purposes for which you say it should be used. Secondly, when there's a provincial government that doesn't really want to do that—these are federal objectives, they're national objectives—you need to find other mechanisms to make sure they're met.

The Chair: Yolande.

• 1155

Ms. Yolande Thibeault (Saint-Lambert, Lib.): Yes. I'd like to address a comment and a question to Susan, who made a very good presentation. It was clear and concise, and I thank her very much.

The whole question of accreditation has already been brought up by Mr. Mark, but at this point I'm sure you realize that we've had representation from immigrants in several professions who wish to come here and become members of different colleges or associations.

Their comments, if I understood correctly, were centred mostly around the fact that most associations have quotas. In other words, an association doesn't want this country to admit more than so many immigrants every year within their midst.

Maybe it's unfair of me to ask you this, but do you have any knowledge of such practices? I'm not talking especially with regard to your association, but I'm sure you know what happens in the health world, anyway.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: Thank you for that question. It is a loaded one, and I'll be careful to dodge the land mine in it.

In terms of the issue of quotas, perception becomes reality. Let me tell you about where I know that perception is reality, and let's talk about the physician environment. In many jurisdictions there are specific limits as to the number of physicians allowed to be trained, because the provincial governments will fund only so many spots. But that's not an immigration issue. That's an issue of funding for determining educational equivalency.

Should additional funds be made available to afford prospective immigrant physicians spots in Canada, as is now flowing because of the shortage of physicians, and some additional work because of shortage of nurses, the perception, I think, will shift again. The regulators, such as the physiotherapists, the provincially mandated regulators, in all professions that are mandated by provincial statute have no issue around access. It absolutely is not our function to deal with access, either in shortages or in surplus situations. The issue instead is whether it is equivalent. If it isn't, our belief at the alliance is that it's our responsibility to help people fill the gaps. The challenge is that, in the present bill, the responsibility for determining equivalency will be based on the label of the Corn Flakes box when in fact it's what's in the Corn Flakes box that will make them equivalent to work.

You can say “Oh, yes, you can come to Canada, and we'll give you credit for your education” without understanding that no one ever looked inside the box to see if it was empty, or if in fact it had Cheerios, or if the number of flakes was the same.

The Chair: I'm getting very hungry.

Ms. Susan Glover Takahashi: Sorry.

So that's the double-edged sword around credentials. Where there are limits, my understanding is that it's not the limits from the regulatory agencies but the limits of funding to allow access to intense resource areas such as physicians and nurses.

The Chair: Thank you, Susan.

Anita, final question.

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you. I'll be very brief.

I just wanted to pick up on the chair's comments to the City of Toronto. I think you've raised some very important issues. I think there are issues that go far beyond immigration in dealing with the large urban centres.

Three of us around this committee are from Manitoba. We're feeling a little bit smug about how well things are moving for the most part between the Province of Manitoba and the Government of Canada, regardless of party affiliations.

• 1200

I guess my point in raising it is simply to tell you that you're not alone. With regard to some of the issues you talk about here, such as training and education, as you are well aware, the devolution of that responsibility has gone to the provincial government, and I'm not sure the federal government is going to double funds.

I'm well familiar with education. I know in Manitoba there is funding from the federal government and the provincial government for settlement and education.

So your concerns are being heard. I know there is a working group of at least five mayors from large urban centres working to facilitate the discussions between the large urban centres and the federal government. I'm watching it with interest and trying to keep abreast of things.

So all I would say to you is that your concerns are being heard, but it's not an easy issue to resolve in a quick manner.

Mr. David Miller: I thank you for those comments. I think you're right, and I think the Manitoba model is an excellent one. Obviously, Toronto is a bit frustrated because of our own particular circumstances. I do think, however, that the federal government can really push the issue and show some leadership. Where you know money is not flowing to where you want it to go, then maybe you can force the issue so that in the end everyone is better off.

Ms. Anita Neville: I think you're absolutely right. My own experience—and I'm pretty new to this game, since I was just elected in November—

Mr. David Miller: Congratulations.

Ms. Anita Neville: —thank you—has come from being part of a group working on the issues related to children, and that's exactly what we're looking at, where the money is not flowing, and how to make government more accountable. Inevitably, your province comes to the fore. We'll soldier on with it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Julie, David, Rose, Susan, Eugen, Jill, and Warren, I thank you very much for your input. I want to tell you that we do take seriously your interventions as they relate to what are the regulations. You can't pass regulations until you have the legislation in place. This committee wants to be very involved. We want to see the regulations when they are finally developed; have some public input and discussion; review the bill, perhaps on an annual basis, to make sure it's working; perhaps invite people such as cities and other organizations to come and tell us how it's doing; and even, at the end of the day, post the administrative guidelines that should be followed by immigration officers so that the accountability and transparency is there for everyone to see.

So we're working through those things. Again, thank you for highlighting them for us and for giving us your input.

Mr. David Miller: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Before we move to our last group of three we'll take a break. Then, after we finish hearing from our witnesses, we'll have some lunch.

• 1204

• 1210

The Chair: Thank you to Intercede, Casa El Norte, the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre and Adult Learning Centre, and the Canadian Islamic Congress for being here this morning. We appreciate your submissions, and we ask that you give us a summary—between five and seven minutes—of your input and your questions and/or concerns with regard to the bill so that we can ask you some questions.

I'll start with Intercede and Jo Alcampo, the interim coordinator.

Welcome, Jo and Leticia.

Ms. Jo Alcampo (Interim Coordinator, Intercede): Leticia Capistrano is actually our board member. She would like to start off. She's the president of our board and a caregiver herself.

The Chair: Of course.

Welcome, Leticia.

Ms. Leticia Capistrano (President, Board of Directors, Intercede): I thank you for giving us this opportunity. I would like to talk about Intercede.

Intercede is for the rights of domestic workers, caregivers, and newcomers. It's a non-profit, community-based service organization whose mandate is to assist in improving the conditions of domestic workers, caregivers, and other newcomers, and to work for equality rights of women, migrant workers, and newcomers.

Domestic workers and caregivers who are members and clients of Intercede are mostly migrant women who enter Canada as temporary workers through the live-in caregiver program that allows them to apply to be landed immigrants from within Canada based on certain requirements.

Intercede works to ensure fair government policies for domestic workers and other newcomers. For example, it has been drawing government attention to the need for fairer immigration regulations and has succeeded in obtaining equal protection under most of Ontario's labour laws, the Human Rights Code, the Workers' Compensation Act, as well as health coverage under OHIP.

Most importantly, Intercede continues to work for the recognition of domestic and caregiving work under the immigration point system; thus, the recognition of the skills of domestic and caregiver workers, which should lead to allowing them to be admitted Canada as landed immigrants.

We have brought our advocacy on migrant worker issues to the international level and have joined migrant worker organizations in other countries to push these issues onto the agenda of the United Nations.

On participatory action research....

Ms. Jo Alcampo: I'll do that.

Intercede has also conducted the largest and most comprehensive participatory action research to examine the forms of abuse and violence experienced by temporary workers in Canada that are in immigration's live-in caregiver program, including the impact of being separated from their families because of the conditions of this program as temporary workers.

The concerns that Intercede expresses in our brief are partly drawn from the findings of this research, which includes strong evidence gathered from our case files. We will present our research report to your administrator.

For the following we've prepared a summary of our recommendations. Our brief is entitled “Bill C-11: the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act Viewed Through Migrant Women's Eyes”.

Letty will read the five main summary points.

Ms. Leticia Capistrano: We have recommended that before final reading of Bill C-11, this proposed law and all pertinent regulations to it be subjected to gender-based analysis or a gender impact study in fulfilment of Canada's obligations and commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Beijing Declaration, and the Beijing Platform for Action.

• 1215

We recommend that Bill C-11, just as it makes reference to important international agreements such as the Convention Against Torture, also makes specific reference to Canada's principal commitment to the equality and empowerment of women under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Beijing Declaration, and the Beijing Platform for Action.

We recommend that the validity of temporary status of workers, particularly women, not depend on any individual employer or company, and that no temporary-status workers, particularly women, are tied, indentured, or bonded in any way to any employer in order to legally remain in Canada. This is a recommendation seeking to eliminate any system or form of indenture, bonded labour, or slavery-like practices that gives excessive power to employers and makes workers, particularly women, vulnerable to various forms of abuse and violence and the violation of their rights.

We also recommend that the skills of this class of domestic caregiver worker and the consistently high demand for their labour be appropriately and justifiably recognized, and that they be admitted to Canada as permanent residents based on the experience, educational levels, and acquired skills appropriate to their line of work.

This seeks to eliminate the current live-in caregiver program and its restrictive requirements, including making living in an employer's household a condition of valid status. These requirements have given rise to exploitation, abuse, and violence, including long years of forced separation from spouse and children. The live-in caregiver program requirements for caregivers and domestic workers are discriminatory and they violate women's human rights.

We recommend that Bill C-11 provide for a transparent and accountable process of setting immigration regulations, which would include a gender-impact analysis as well as human rights and anti-racist screening, and that such proposed regulations be submitted to public scrutiny, including that of non-government organizations and other affected groups, before they are put into effect.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: In conclusion, Intercede acknowledges and welcomes efforts to simplify and improve Canada's law with respect to refugee protection and immigration, and therefore commends the positive changes in Bill C-11. However, we have concerns about specific aspects and implications of the bill as currently drafted.

Specifically, point one is the absence of any reference to international agreements in the bill eliminating discrimination against women and promoting the equality of all women.

Point two is the lack of a gender-impact analysis of the proposed law and subsequent regulations.

Point three is the admission and exploitation of temporary workers under restrictive regulations similar to those currently in place for temporary workers in the LCP, or live-in caregiver program.

On behalf of Intercede we would like to say we appreciate the opportunity to present our brief to the committee members, and we welcome your questions at this time.

The Chair: Thank you, Jo and Leticia, for your input and your submission.

Now we will go to Casa El Norte and the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre and Adult Learning Centre. We have Roderick McDowell.

Welcome, Roderick and others.

Mr. Roderick McDowell (Barrister and Solicitor, Casa El Norte and Fort Erie Multicultural Centre and Adult Learning Centre): Thank you very much.

On behalf of the Casa El Norte refugee assistance organization and the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre, I want to thank you for the opportunity to talk to you this afternoon.

With me is Mrs. Louisa Hernandez, a successful refugee claimant and board member of the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre; the Reverend Leslie McSpadden, a board member from Casa El Norte; and the Reverend Gordon Gooderham, a board member of the Fort Erie Multicultural Centre and founder of Matthew House, a refugee shelter run in Fort Erie.

I've described who I am in the brief. Basically, I'm a lawyer who does a lot of refugee work and I'm on almost every board involving refugees or immigrants in the Fort Erie-Buffalo area, including Vive, who you heard from yesterday. I also wish to apologize to the francophone members for not addressing you in both official languages. I'm always amazed by the refugees and immigrants who can speak three or four languages fluently.

• 1220

I want to concentrate on our experience at a very busy port of entry called Fort Erie. We began as a small group of five families in a prayer group. In 1985, an immigration officer, at Easter time, came to us and said there were two refugee families who had just arrived at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie. They had small kids, and one of the women was pregnant and due to deliver any day. In this story, there wasn't even an inn available.

We became involved with refugees and began a process of welcoming them. We believe that any new process must be fair, simple—and I underline “simple”—and consistent with the charter and our international covenants. We have learned from the old first-hearing process in Bill C-55 that extensive and complicated screening processes are cumbersome, inefficient, and don't do the job.

If you believe there must be an eligibility screening, then concentrate on claimants with major criminal records, known terrorists, or senior members of governments with no regard for human rights. We don't object to refugee claimants being fingerprinted, photographed, and told they must complete medical exams and initial documents for the Refugee Board within a reasonable time. But you have to give Citizenship and Immigration Canada the human and electronic resources to see the claimants and check their computers and records from Interpol and other international resources.

What is proposed in Bill C-11 cannot be done in three days. Screen for the obvious and then refer to the refugee protection division, with some safeguards, as I have suggested. Let the refugee protection division or the IRB deal with all the other problems. Remember, the refugee definition in this bill—at clause 98—and in the present law is subject to section E, which is the exclusion clause, which says that if you have status in another country you have to go back there, or section F, which deals with war crimes, criminality, and acts contrary to the United Nations.

In particular, get rid of sections 103 and 104 of the present act. They're just going to make it a mess. Those things can be dealt with by the refugee division.

Give persons the right to make more than one refugee claim, at least providing they've been outside of Canada for a reasonable time, and especially if they've returned to their country of nationality and have been persecuted.

I want to tell you a couple of really human stories about why the system needs to be simple, fair, and effective.

I remember a family that came to Fort Erie. He was a physician in Colombia. He had American graduate training. He was a reserve officer in the Colombian armed forces. He administered a hospital. His wife was a lawyer working for the Colombian government, chasing the narcotic traffickers, trying to see how they were laundering their money.

They had a Mercedes. They lived in a beautiful home. They had everything. They were the crème de la crème. They started getting phone calls: “Your children are wearing this to school. Your children are there.” They hired private body guards. The phone calls continued. They became panicked and absolutely terrified, and rightly so, that their children were at risk, let alone themselves.

At a cocktail party one night the husband asked a confrere in the counter-intelligence division of the Colombian government, “What can you do?” He said “Get out. We can't help you.” They go to Miami and they see the Colombian consul general there. They tell their story. Nobody knows where they are except this consul general. The phone calls start in Miami “We know where you are. We're going to get you.”

At three o'clock in the morning they got in a car and they drove to Fort Erie. When we first saw them in Fort Erie in a room, they were cramped in one corner. They were crying. They were incoherent. They were terrified. They couldn't submit to a lengthy examination by an immigration officer at the port of entry. Even for these intelligent, articulate people, the crème de la crème of their society, the process of dealing with an immigration officer at the port of entry just wouldn't work. They were accepted as refugees.

I want to tell you another story. I'll call this lady Maria. She went through her refugee hearing, and she had a lawyer who hadn't done a lot of refugee work. He didn't realize that two out of three refugee women suffer some form of sexual assault. He didn't ask her the question. She couldn't even tell her common-law spouse.

They had their hearing. It didn't go well. On their wedding night, she finally told her husband that she'd been raped in her native country. But they didn't know they should tell their lawyer. They didn't know that the process could be reopened because the board hadn't rendered their final decision. Then they came to me.

Despite loads of psychiatric evidence, despite proof from their native country that she'd been raped, the process that exists now, the back-end review, failed totally. They were deported to their native country.

It happened again. This time she wasn't raped, but she spent ten days in a psychiatric unit and nearly killed herself. Her husband was repeatedly beaten. When they made their second claim, they were accepted.

There are stories of people who are being divided. We just had a case at Casa El Norte the other day of a family from the Congo, totally separated from the chaos of that land. The father came in with three older children. We learned from our computer services that they'd gone to Romero House, where Mary Jo Leddy is involved. We got them linked up. When the wife heard her husband's voice, she fainted. These are people....

• 1225

Immigration officers are trained to screen out the obvious. It's the only way it's going to work at a busy port of entry, whether you're dealing with NAFTA or whether you're dealing with refugees. So keep it simple, but give them the resources.

Thank you. If you have questions, I'd be glad to answer them later on.

The Chair: Thank you, Roderick, and again thank you all for the hard work you do on a day-to-day basis. It really is a humanitarian mission of love. Thank you.

We have now the Canadian Islamic Congress, Wahida Valiante. That sounds Italian.

Ms. Wahida Valiante (National Vice-President, Canadian Islamic Congress): It is.

The Chair: Well, benvenuto.

Ms. Wahida Valiante: Grazie.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'd like to thank the committee also for giving us the opportunity to present our concerns and one recommendation.

My name is Wahida Valiante. I'm the chair of the Canadian Islamic Congress. I'm also a professional social worker who has been in the field for over 25 years. I have worked with immigrants, status people, and really have an extensive experience from learning their stories, where they come from and how they find Canada. I'm also very active in my own community, so I interact with a very diverse segment of the Muslim population. As you know, the largest refugee group, according to United Nations statistics, is the Muslim population, and the hot spots happen to be where the large majority of Muslims live. So this is the background and the concerns.

I'm going to present this not just as a member of something, but as a social worker, as a person who has also heard these stories and has experienced that.

Like so many in this country, I am a proud Canadian. Many years ago I was a landed immigrant in this beautiful country, but Canada is now my home, my only home. It is also the home of my children and will soon be the home of my grandchildren. As you can see, I'm very multicultural. My husband is Italian and he is from Italy.

I'm also proud that the United Nations has chosen Canada for years as the best country in the world in which to live. This was no accident. We live in a peaceful society here where all our people are treated equally in the eyes of the law. We are proud of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and proud of our justice system.

But I still worry, Mr. Chairman. Could Canada become a police state? Are the dire predictions of Orwell's terrifying novel 1984 finally catching up with us? It could soon be so if Bill C-11 were to become law. It is the view and the concern of the Canadian Islamic Congress that Bill C-11 compromises the civil rights of Canada's permanent residents by giving unrestricted secret-police-style deportation powers to federal immigration officials. We strongly believe that this latitude in Bill C-11's provisions contradicts Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Chairman, many immigrants to this country, whether they come from eastern Europe or the developing world, fled here from oppressive military regimes or corrupt totalitarian governments in their countries of origin. Now Bill C-11 imposes the permanent threat of unaccountable deportation on them and offers virtually no chance of appeal. It is dangerously reminiscent of a police state mentality.

Over the decades, immigrants, so many of whom became full citizens at the earliest opportunity, have helped to build this country. Canada simply cannot afford now to tarnish the global image that it is a country of welcome to immigrants, where all can fully utilize and trust our justice system, where all are protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada needs millions of new immigrants over the coming century in order to maintain our economic prosperity in light of an aging population and a low birth rate. Therefore the CIC wholeheartedly agrees with the assessment of both the Canadian Bar Association and Amnesty International that Bill C-11 is draconian in its proposed form.

We are generally afraid, Mr. Chairman, that your government is trying to rush Bill C-11 into law before Parliament rises for the summer recess.

• 1230

The media have quoted the Honourable Elinor Caplan, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, as saying Bill C-11 is simply aimed at overhauling Canada's 25-year-old Immigration Act. She said:

Canadians want to know that we have the tools to remove criminals as quickly as possible and that's what the bill does.... I want to be able to remove [alleged criminals] as quickly as possible.

We do agree with the honourable minister that Canadians want to remove criminals as quickly as possible from their country, especially for the sake of our children and their children, but this should not be done at any cost. The cost of a Bill C-11 that could so easily undermine our dearly guarded Charter of Rights and Freedoms is far too high.

The media have also quoted Minister Caplan as saying:

I have advice from the justice department that what is in Bill C-11 meets the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We strongly disagree with and object to this statement, because the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that under Bill C-11, Canada's permanent residents have no right to an appeal. On the basis of secret service evidence alone, they can be thrown out of the country and their permanent status revoked, and that is it. They don't fully benefit from our justice system at all. This is simply unfair and also contravenes the Geneva Convention.

In conclusion, we appeal to you to refer Bill C-11 to an important third party, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, to rule if it indeed does or does not meet what Minister Caplan vaguely referred to as the test of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Please do this without delay, Mr. Chairman. Do it for Canada, do it for all Canadians.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Wahida, and thank you all for excellent submissions and your input. Now we can ask you some questions.

We'll start with Inky.

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

I certainly would like to thank you all for your appearance today. I think as we hear more and more witnesses, we are starting to realize how important it is that this bill be done the right way. I agree with Mr. McDowell that screening can be done without putting at risk the legitimate refugees and immigrants of this country, because we certainly have the technology to do it at the front end. I've always said that the bill should not jeopardize human rights. It appears that many witnesses continue to bring up the issue of human rights, the lack of due process, the lack of appeal.

My question to all of you is, if there were not major changes made to this bill, on balance, would you perceive this bill as anti-refugee?

The Chair: I'll ask all of you.

Roderick.

Mr. Roderick McDowell: As I said in my brief, this bill is a make-work project for lawyers. There is some window dressing with an appeal process, but overall, I'm opposed to it and our organizations are. I don't think it does favour refugees. There are critical problems with it, and you've heard them before. I just want to reiterate.

They need to have due process and a body with the funding and the special training, such as the refugee division, as it's currently called, to do the job. Without that, there's a jeopardy. There also needs to be, as I pointed out in that one scenario to you, a meaningful right of appeal. I'm concerned that a paper appeal is insufficient in itself.

The Chair: Jo.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: Again we reiterate that Canada must comply with its international commitments and submit, for example, to a gender-based analysis, in compliance with the Beijing Declaration and Beijing Platform for Action. Specifically, you'll see in our brief quoted paragraphs from the Beijing Platform for Action drawing attention to the fact that women migrant workers, displaced women, and refugee women face additional barriers to the enjoyment of their human rights because of race, language, and ethnicity, and because they are poor. More specifically, also in the Beijing Platform for Action—

The Chair: Jo, the question was, do you think this bill is a pro-refugee bill, and, with some changes, obviously, would you be supportive, or are you against this bill in its present form or whatever? That was the question.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: Sure. To be concise, we would be against the bill in its present form. It violates and doesn't honour, I think, the international commitments made by our country.

• 1235

The Chair: Wahida.

Ms. Wahida Valiante: I definitely think we will not support the bill. As many of the presenters have already pointed out, it has serious deficiencies, and unless they are fixed properly and it is made fair to all citizens of Canada and those who are coming, this bill should not really pass.

The Chair: Thank you.

John.

Mr. John McCallum (Markham, Lib.): I'd like to say first that I've been very moved and impressed by your presentations and the others we've heard throughout the week. I think this bill does have certain illiberal aspects, which I certainly hope we will be able to change. In particular, on allowing a second application for a refugee, we've heard today—and we heard even worse stories yesterday—what might happen if that second appeal is not allowed.

I'd like to make one comment and ask one question. I agree with the spirit of your presentations, but where the Canadian Islamic Congress talks of giving “secret police-style deportation powers to federal immigration officials”, I think the bill could be read that way, but that is certainly not the intent. So one amendment we are definitely going to be proposing—I'm not saying this is the only one by any means—is to make it clear that immigration officials do not have the authority to deport a permanent resident, but there would have to be a proper hearing.

Mr. McDowell, can you be a bit more specific—most of us here are not lawyers—as to how the bill might be amended to meet your suggestions regarding refugees?

Mr. Roderick McDowell: Clauses 103 and 104 need to go, because they can be dealt with by the refugee protection division.

Second, you have the ability, as has been mentioned by Mr. Mark already, with the technology, to do the initial screening. The formula under the present law, I think, is simple enough. There's an excellent paper by David Matas, which I think has been submitted to your committee. Read it—it's elaborate. I'm a lawyer, I do this all the time, and I was getting lost—I had to read it two or three times. It's too complicated. You're trying to get 3% or less, maybe 2%, with this huge hammer. It doesn't make sense. If we have good front-end screening, we should be able to stop the very narrow ones.

You can also deal another way with immigration medicals. You should require them to be submitted, but even look at having them done at the ports of entry. The Immigration and Naturalization Service now does medicals at the port of entry. They take x-rays and they're transmitted electronically to a centre where there's always a radiologist available. The same technology exists for blood, for the test for HIV and other diseases. If you have that kind of screening the kind of problem that happened in Hamilton recently with that woman wouldn't happen. That's a regulatory thing, I realize that. But if you set rather strict guidelines that things have to be done or their temporary status is lost, that I think would be enough of a linchpin.

Then finally, you've got to provide the resources. You heard from the City of Toronto—I agree. The Town of Fort Erie and the Regional Municipality of Niagara also would need some of those resources to make sure those kinds of checks are done in an appropriate fashion. It safeguards the refugees, it safeguards the immigration officers, and it safeguards the rest of us.

Mr. John McCallum: I read all 43 pages of that paper by David Matas. I found it extremely well written and worth reading, but also extremely depressing in respect of the extraordinary complexity of the system, which at the same time, notwithstanding its complexity, isn't always very fair.

Mr. Roderick McDowell: I agree, sir.

The Chair: Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My question is for the representative from Intercede.

I agree with your comment that Canada's international commitments mean nothing unless they are reflected in legislation. Obviously Bill C-11 is an example of legislation where these commitments really should be reflected.

• 1240

I am also in favour of the proposal that you made, namely to include, at the outset of the act, references to the convention on violence against women and on the Beijing Declaration.

In addition, you, like other witnesses yesterday, asked that the Live-In Caregiver Program be cancelled, whereas other groups asked that it be improved by removing certain constraints, including the requirement to live with the employer, or by removing the two-year work period. In asking that the program be cancelled, is it specifically those elements that you want to do away with?

[English]

The Chair: Jo.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: Thank you for your comments.

The belief of Intercede is that the live-in caregiver program as it stands at the moment needs to be eliminated. For example, among the objectives of Bill C-ll is to facilitate the entry of temporary workers into Canada along with students and visitors, but unlike members of the economic class or the family class, temporary workers such as migrant workers who come in through the live-in caregiver program are not admitted as permanent residents or landed immigrants. One of our main points is that the live-in caregiver program be eliminated and that domestic workers be recognized under the points system and be able to enter Canada as landed immigrants.

A subject of our research is the impact on migrant workers of forced family separation of up to eight years at a time, parents separated from their children. Part of our research is the impact of this as a form of abuse and violence. Any type of regulation through a program that forces people to be separated from their families for such a long length of time we feel violates human rights. We feel any temporary worker who is bonded to their employer, where they are only allowed to be in Canada if they have a valid employer on their employment authorization.... Once they change employers they no longer have status in Canada, and because the live-in requirement requires them to live with their employer, when they lose their employers they become homeless. They lose their home.

The implication of the experiences of abuse and violence is summarized in our research, and it's something that for the past 20 years Intercede has been fighting for—that there be no program where people are indentured to their employers, and that women be able to come as landed immigrants to Canada.

The Chair: Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. McDowell, a question I've asked other people who, like you, work on the front lines is, are you worried about getting arrested or fined under clause 117 of the bill?

Mr. Roderick McDowell: It's there, it's worrisome. One of the previous ministers once said “We won't arrest NGOs or priests and nuns who are helping people”. But the problem is, it's there. One of the realities is that one of the only ways refugees can get out of these countries is through agents. It can't be done otherwise. You can't go to your government and ask for a passport. Again, I think it's part of the problems of this bill that it uses a sledgehammer to deal with a smaller problem.

The problem of illegal immigrants coming in through the smugglers is an international problem that needs to be dealt with by, for instance, making our visa posts abroad more accessible by giving them the resources to do it so that people won't...because they have to wait for two and a half years or three years to get through Beijing. Maybe if it was a year instead of three years they would go through that. So the solution is to improve our act overseas.

I think clause 117 is worrisome, because it says “knowingly organize the coming into Canada of one or more persons”. If I'd helped that family from Colombia come across the border, or gone over to give them legal advice, I possibly could be charged under that clause. I think it's far too broad.

• 1245

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I had two questions but I'll keep it to one. Actually, it's a comment.

You had mentioned amending or deleting clauses 103 and 104. I found that interesting, because I think that's the first time we've actually had representation on those two clauses, at least that I can recall. Certainly it's not part of the Canadian Council for Refugees brief, and they've expressed many concerns and made many recommendations. So I'm anxious to pursue that.

My real question has to do with a clarification I need. That is, are we absolutely in contravention of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment? I think if we're absolutely in contravention of those two conventions, that should be impetus enough for us to get appropriate changes to this bill. I think that's where we're getting some different opinions.

The Chair: On clauses 103 and 104, first, Roderick.

Mr. Roderick McDowell: My opinion would be, yes, because the ineligibility stops the refugee hearing process. At the refugee hearing process the minister is allowed to make representations. The minister has representatives available. Let a process that must take those covenants into place deal with it.

The really thorny issue you have to deal with, and the Supreme Court is dealing with it in Suresh and other cases, is whether people who have clearly been tortured but may be members of terrorist organizations can be sent back.

I think the answer should be no. I think the act should enshrine those principles. I think there are certain fundamental principles of life, safety, and the protection of human beings that override anything else.

The Chair: Jo, on the same question on torture and internment.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: I think we will have to pass on that question. It's not our expertise. We specifically focus on migrant workers and domestic workers.

The Chair: Fine.

Wahida, any comments on that?

Ms. Wahida Valiante: I can add to what's just been said, that the fundamental rights of liberty, life, and security are guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canadians, as well as the international law.

I think we need to bring this bill in line with what the international law is so that there is, one, conformity, and, two, an unambiguous statement. For instance, already there were recent amendments to the Immigration Act concerning terrorists and members of terrorist organizations. Also—I could read it to you—I think there were other presentations made from York University, because I sit on one of their committees and I know what was included in it, saying that there is concern among our community because of the whole concept, or the perception out there, that every one of us is a potential terrorist.

I've been here all my life and I'm concerned in that I work with many organizations, and I can be held up and told that I'm aiding some terrorist organization. So I think this is really a very serious threat to many of us who are Canadians who have spent our entire life here and not involved in my work in....

The Chair: Just like they thought every Italian belonged to the Mafia, right?

Ms. Wahida Valiante: I'm vulnerable from both directions.

The Chair: I have been going through that for thirty or forty years. I understand.

John.

Mr. John Herron: I want to follow up on some testimony that came from Mr. McDowell. I was really struck by one aspect of it, that we need to have an actual physical appeal as opposed to only a paper appeal. I think we're somewhat regressive in this aspect in that prior to the establishment of the refugee appeals board—and my riding representative predecessor, Gordon Fairweather, was its chair—we looked at human beings as human beings as opposed to just a file.

In your view, given the fact that consideration of appeal may not be made, do you believe that even a paper appeal would not be sufficient, that it would have to be in a physical form?

Mr. Roderick McDowell: A paper appeal is better than what we have. I acknowledge that, and it's a great improvement. The problem is, if you're going to review facts, which this bill looks at, then you have to hear the people.

I'm a deputy small claims court judge in another life, and unless I can see the person testify and look at them and try to decide credibility.... I don't know how I'd do that on paper. If you were arguing law with the present system there could be some argument that this wouldn't be necessary, it could be done on paper. But even there, in the Federal Court, those justices ask a lot of questions—if you get leave—and they do seriously examine your arguments. So doing it just on paper leaves out that important human element. Remember, if we make a mistake in this process, somebody could die.

• 1250

This is, ladies and gentlemen, capital punishment relived. If this isn't done right, we can make the kind of mistakes that were made before capital punishment was abolished. I think you really need to take that to heart because the regimes they'll go back to don't have due process.

The Chair: Anita, do you have a question?

Ms. Anita Neville: Thank you. I've been going back and forth with the chair as to whether I could speak because I know that time is the issue.

First of all, I just have to comment again for those of you who are here—and I don't think I speak just for myself—on how overwhelmed I and, I assume, others are by the dedication, energy, and commitment you bring to the work you do. Listening to people over and over again...I think it's quite overwhelming, and we should all be very thankful to you for what you do.

My very brief question will be to intercede for a certain group. Mr. McCallum and I were recently in the Philippines visiting the immigration post there, and as you are more than aware, probably 80% of those in the live-in caregiver program come from the Philippines. My understanding is that if they did not come in as temporary workers, they would not have the point eligibility to come in under the economic class as things now stand.

I was also made aware that, as you quite rightly indicate, many feel when they come here that they are indentured to the family—or organization, but primarily families—they're working for. There was some discussion at the visa office there of the importance of increasing the knowledge level in the orientation program for workers in terms of what their expectations and rights are when they come to Canada. Then when they come to Canada and it doesn't work out for them, they will know that there is recourse to go to an immigration office or to an agency like yourselves for help and that they will not be sent back to their countries. Would that make a difference?

The Chair: Jo.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: We really acknowledge that this is work that needs to be done abroad, in the host country and specifically in the Philippines, which is where the majority of domestic workers who apply for the live-in caregiver program come from.

I'm the interim coordinator, so I'm a bit inexperienced in making presentations, but our coordinator has been with Intercede for 17 years. Her name is Fely Villasin, and she's been on leave in the Philippines for the past six months. She's working with the PEOA, which is the Philippine Overseas Employment Agency. Any migrant domestic workers who enter Canada through the LCP must attend the orientation sessions.

What we had heard from various domestic workers who came to our office was validated by her findings, that is, there's no orientation on human rights and the process for complaints. That's what we're working on at the moment and what Intercede works on with agencies in the Philippines.

Ms. Anita Neville: I have a brief comment. If you are in touch with her, I would strongly recommend that she make contact with the department in Manila in the Philippines, because they are in the process of developing a program for just this purpose. They should be working together, not at cross-purposes.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you.

I have one question with regard to our temporary worker program. As you know, it is a very important program, not only for Canada but obviously for people who want to come here temporarily. I got the impression that you were leading us, and I won't comment on the live-in care program because that's a rather unique one. I understand about the abuse and certain aspects of abuse that are troublesome to me too, but with regard to the temporary worker program, it's a two-way street.

We need workers, people want to come from other countries to this country to be here only temporarily. We're going to make it easier for them to make the choice as to whether or not they want to stay here permanently by having the Canada inland class. This status essentially means that you don't have to go back home in order to apply.

• 1255

From farming to construction to a whole bunch of our industries, migrant workers are in fact very important. I just need some clarification. Did you mean to suggest that every temporary worker should be granted landed status or that the temporary worker program, with some changes, and having the in-Canada landing class, would better facilitate the movement of people who may well want to come here only on a temporary and not on a long-term basis? Perhaps Jo or Roderick can deal with that.

Ms. Jo Alcampo: Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairperson.

I would like to clarify our position. We believe that as long as their rights as workers are protected in legislation, temporary workers should have the right to come to Canada as migrant workers. Specifically, with the live-in caregivers program—of course we won't spend more time on it, I know it's a specific program—there are issues of violation of their human rights, of abuses of the Employment Standards Act, and of exemptions in the Employment Standards Act for specific workers. We feel any legislation that affects temporary migrant workers needs to have a gender-impact-based analysis, as well as an analysis based on race and other issues related to our international commitments to conventions.

The Chair: Roderick, do you see a lot of that at our borders?

Mr. Roderick McDowell: There are quite a few migrant workers in the tender fruit industry in the Niagara area and more in the Dunnville area and along the Lake Erie shore in tobacco. There are serious problems with human rights abuses and with employment standards.

Now, these are provincial areas, but the problem is that the federal government brings the people in. I think a temporary worker program is a good idea because it does enable these people to send money back to their countries, money that wouldn't otherwise be available. We need them here, but there has to be all the safeguards that have been talked about by the people from Intercede, because she's absolutely right.

The Chair: Great. Thank you.

A voice: May I say something?

The Chair: No. We're going to lunch.

Thank you very much for all your input.

To the committee, we'll reconvene here at two o'clock and hear our last witnesses, so we can check out and have some lunch.

Thank you, again, for all your hard work.