CIMM Committee Meeting

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

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

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

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, February 28, 2002

0910

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

0915

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

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.)

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Jerry Pickard

0920

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Steve Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

0925

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

0930

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

0935

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

0940

The Chair

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

0945

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Jerry Pickard

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Pickard

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Pickard

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

0950

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

M. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

M. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

0955

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1000

The Chair

M. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

1005

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress)

1010

1015

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1020

The Chair

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

1025

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

1030

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Mahoney

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

Mr. Mahoney

1035

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1040

Mr. Jerry Pickard

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

M. Yvon Charbonneau

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1045

The Chair

Mr. Mahoney

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

1050

The Chair

Mr. Hassan Yussuff

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Narvey (Legal Researcher and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust)

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Narvey

1055

The Chair

Mr. Kenneth Narvey

The Chair

1100

Mr. Kenneth Narvey

The Chair

1105

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

1110

1115

1120

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

1125

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Jack Jedwab (Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies)

Ms. Dyane Adam

1130

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Mr. Paul Forseth

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Gérard Finn (Director General, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages)

The Chair

Ms. Dyane Adam

The Chair

M. Mahoney

1135

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Mahoney

The Chair

M. Mahoney

Ms. Dyane Adam

1140

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

M. Mahoney

Ms. Dyane Adam

M. Mahoney

Ms. Dyane Adam

Mr. Jack Jedwab

1145

The Chair

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Ms. Dyane Adam

1150

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Madame Dyane Adam

1155

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau

1200

Madame Dyane Adam

Mr. Jack Jedwab

1205

Madame Dyane Adam

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration

NUMBER 050

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Thursday, February 28, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0910)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.)): Good morning. Perhaps we could just do this, because at 10 o'clock we have two additional witnesses, maybe three, whom we want to hear from. I thought we might want to take this opportunity between nine and 10 o'clock to discuss a couple of things.

One is some instructions to our research team on the drafting of a report, or potential questions. You will note they've been very good to do a paper for us on issues we've heard from the witnesses. It's a fairly extensive one that talks about the issues and which witnesses said what. We will have an update on that, obviously after the last witnesses appear. We will send it to your constituency offices. I believe it is being translated, or it will be translated and ready for Monday.

I think in preparation for the drafting of a report, they will start to draft an issues paper so that we can prepare ourselves for the meeting we will have with the minister and the department on Tuesday, when we return.

I thought on Monday when we return, late in the afternoon, we could take a couple of hours to start to review the questions so that when the minister and the department appear on Tuesday morning, we will be able to ask them the questions, really focus on what we heard, what some of our questions are, and see what the responses have been. That way, once we've met with the minister and the department, we can start to draft the final report, which I hope we can consider on Thursday morning of that week. That would be along the schedule we've been given.

I just want to talk a little bit about what might be in that issues or draft report. If you all turn to your issues paper dated February 2002, you'll see it has a table of contents, the front page, as an example. It has something like 19 different issues there. I thought that might be a guide by which we could have a discussion. That's over and above everything else, you know, the introduction, the fluff, all of those other things, and the recommendation. But as a guide toward writing the report, I thought it would be very respectful to the witnesses who appeared to talk about the issues that they thought were very important. They're not only from when they talked to us but, more importantly, from what was in their briefs, because Margaret and Ben have gone through their briefs and listed every issue they had, even if they hadn't told us in their summary.

So as a guide, we may use the table of contents as an example. It talks about skilled-worker points, retroactivity, education, arranged employment, language, and so on. All of those issues would form the basis of a draft report that will give us, as a committee, options we may or may not want to do something with. That would lead us into, I hope, some very good and tough questions of the administration and the minister when they return on the Tuesday.

I think our researchers and this committee would probably need a little bit of guidance on about four or five issues. Maybe we could have a free-for-all or brainstorming session about a few things.

First, before I go any further, I want to address the question of the minister's press release. I want to thank all of you, because sometimes people say the fact he has already taken a decision means he's not prepared to wait for the report. I'd like to think that because what the witnesses were saying was of such importance and in light of the fact that, as you know, on December 17 the department published the new pass mark and an awful lot of people in the inventory were wondering what would happen next, the minister felt he needed to do something. I think that based on what was heard in the first two or three weeks and the comments by all of us that we found certain things wrong, the minister, upon a little bit of reflection and perhaps encouragement from some of us, felt we needed to signal to the community what we might be able to do with regard to the existing system, including the backlog; the date of June 28; how to deal with the principle of retroactivity; and what we should do with a new grid system, which I hope we're going to help develop, that now says you need 80 points to get in. I think what the minister has announced is a starting point. It was a way to clarify a number of problems that he foresaw.

One of the first issues I want to talk about is retroactivity. I gave you the background as to what the minister said, because to a certain extent it addresses the issue of retroactivity. So let's talk about retroactivity for a few minutes. We have 45 minutes between now and when our witnesses arrive.

We'll start with you, Paul.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster--Coquitlam--Burnaby, Canadian Alliance): Can we first clarify and make sure we understand exactly what the minister said. I'll repeat to you what I heard and you can correct me. I heard that a date was shifted six months. The other point was that the compassionate points were shifted five points. The previous announcement was that those who were in the transition were going to be subject to 75 instead of 80. Now that 75 group will only be 70. So it's a shift of five points for a group and one date has been moved six months. Those are the only changes.

The Chair: Pretty well.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The underlying principle has not changed in that the applicants are subject to what the bureaucracy does and how soon it's able to deal with its material. Once the applicants put in their stuff, everything is out of their control and they don't know what's going to happen, based on how good the bureaucracy is in getting around to their file. In other words, it's the applicant who's going to suffer the consequences one way or the other, based on the number of clerks or resources available and what's going on in the department. So the client bears the burden of the bureaucracy, rather than the government.

What I'm looking for is simply a clear demarcation date. The one I've published is December 31. For anything that comes in before that date, you're processed under the old rules and the department is stuck with it. After that there are new rules, points, and so on. That's in line with a lot of the testimony we heard. Just picking a date and saying one or the other really provides clarity. So let's reiterate what I said.

The Chair: What you're saying is that the date of December 17, when the new regulations were prepublished and we began our review, should be forgotten about.

Mr. Paul Forseth: A date could be picked.

The Chair: But the date of June 28 is picked. I'm not trying to be argumentative, because I like what you're saying. I'm just trying to understand how we're going to deal with this. Assuming that June 28 has to be the coming-into-force day of the regulations and the act, what you're suggesting is that until the end of the year everybody essentially moves into an old system or new regulations and a new grid that we might recommend. Then they're assessed on what? On the new. Is that right?

Mr. Paul Forseth: As you understand, a lot of the testimony we have, especially from the legal community, is that for clarity and all the justice issues and all that stuff, you pick a date, as the department had done before, in 1976 or whatever. Then it's very clear and it's defensible legally. If you fudge it too much, we're probably subject to lawsuits and all kinds of stuff as well.

As you recall, the recommendation was to pick a date, so I jumped ahead and said let's pick a date that--

Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): A date for what?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Your application date, which regime your application will be subject to.

The Chair: We'll say new applications, because the backlog is one thing, but that's the same sort of question I'm asking. A new date would mean a date at which the new regulations, whatever they might be, would kick in. Isn't that what you're saying?

Mr. Paul Forseth: No, no. I'm talking about the application date.

The Chair: Yes, application date.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham--Kent Essex, Lib.): My interpretation of what you said was that instead of December 17, it would be December 31. Is that really your suggestion?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, and the reason--

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Is there a hell of a difference between two weeks? I don't think anybody--

The Chair: No, no. A year and two weeks.

An hon. member: That's what he's talking about.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I don't think he is, though. No, no, you're talking about the front-line time, aren't you?

¿ (0920)

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes. You see, the thing is that it's unreasonable to say that any application filed after December.... You have to give some chance for people to read the material. We could argue and debate over a date, but it's the principle that's the issue. It's having a single date where any application that comes in before that date is assessed under the old rules and any application that comes in after that date is assessed on the new rules. It's simple. That's all. So that's an issue that I throw out there to think about, and it is in line with a lot of the testimony we've heard.

I just wanted to make sure I understood exactly what the minister has done. I take it that he has moved one of the dates six months later. So it's providing a little bit more compassion there, and compassion has been increased by changing the 75-point group to 70.

The Chair: Right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: And the choice of refund.

The Chair: And the choice of refund, and perhaps a different mark based on the next step we do, and that's the regulations we fix.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, okay. To make it clear, you can get a refund if by happenstance the bureaucracy has not sent you a notice letter--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Pre-paper screen.

Mr. Paul Forseth: --that you're going to get an interview or something. Yes.

The Chair: So Paul, your suggestion is that the application date is applicable.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: It's the application date of a client.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: And picking a date means the end of December, December 31 of this year.

Mr. Paul Forseth: That's the one I came up with, yes.

The Chair: It's this year that you came up with, right?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes.

The Chair: All right. That's one idea.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I need some information. The regulations are not currently in effect. So what is given to a person who makes an immigration application and who wants to immigrate to Canada? What information do we give that person? Technically, we can't give him or her a grid that isn't accepted. So that means there are a lot of people of who have filed immigration applications and who still have the impression that the application grid is the one that has been in effect for a number of years already and according to which they feel they would be eligible.

Let's say that the date announced by Mr. Coderre is a step in the right direction, except that, for all those who have come after December 17, it's not simple or easy at all. If the new grid were in fact broader, that would be another matter. But if, in everyone's view, the new grid made no sense--we agree on that--something a little more rational must absolutely be proposed.

[English]

The Chair: Madeleine, I would agree with you, except that as per the law, a government prepublished the regulations and asked for comment, but you have to signal to new applicants what that new potential grid might be and what the regulations might be. I would agree with you that we have applications in limbo before December 17, and now we have applicants in limbo after December 17.

The answer to your question, I think, is in the background of the minister's release, where it says:

Those who applied after December 17, 2001:

who have not received a selection decision by June 28, 2002 will be subject to the proposed selection criteria and a pass mark yet to be determined. The proposed pass mark in the pre-published regulations is 80 points.

In other words, he's waiting for us to give him advice for him to make a decision. You're right; those people then are going to be... They may have read 80... and these regulations, but now they will not be subject to those but will be subject to anything that we and he decide, hopefully in the near term. But it is confusing.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't have my copy here. Can we make some copies?

The Chair: Sure.

Madeleine, what are you proposing on the question of retroactivity? Maybe for clarity we might think about retroactivity, as Paul has talked about, for those who applied before December 17. What do we do with the people in the present system?

The minister has said they all have to wait until January 2003 for a decision. If they can get a decision before then, they're under the old rules, as per their agreement with us.

Let's hope we can, in our report, say very strongly to the minister that the 130,000 applications and interviews yet to be done aren't going to happen unless we put in an awful lot of resources and have the will to help these people through the system. They can't help themselves through the system, but our administration can process the papers and give the interviews. So it would be a strong statement on the resource side that we should do that.

Let's think about it. What should we do with the backlog, and what should we do about a new application date, as Paul has suggested?

What do you think we ought to do?

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If you're asking me for my opinion, I personally think that the implementation of the act should be delayed. The Minister clearly said that it was very important that it be implemented on June 28. It could also be very important that it be implemented on December 28. We agree that we worked on the parent legislation for years and Canada did not go bankrupt.

So I believe there might be reasons for strongly recommending that the implementation of the act be delayed so that we can tidy things up a bit. That would not prevent the regulations from being known and carved in stone, but they would be enforced a little later than June 28.

Look, June 28 is in three or four months, and there is a lot of work to do. Everyone agrees that the regulations will require a great deal of work and that it can't be done on the edge of a countertop.

[English]

The Chair: We have been thinking a lot about this question of June 28. In actual fact, it might be only symbolic in nature, because it now looks like the actual implementation of everything will be in January 2003. But on the coming into force, Margaret might want to address this whole question of the significance of June 28. Based on what the minister has already said, January 2003 may very well be the point, in terms of the actual implementation.

Some of us have heard that June 28 is problematic, but maybe the government has the broader agenda of making sure the new act comes into force before the very symbolic day of July 1, Canada Day, so we can say we have a new immigration bill, or--

¿ (0925)

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We can wait until 2003.

[English]

The Chair: --some imperatives on some of the security issues that need to be put into place that Bill C-11 talks about. Those are very important, too.

So, Margaret, what is the significance or legalistic sort of definition of June 28?

Ms. Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): I think you've touched on what the minister is proposing, which is that the entire act and all of the regulations come into force at the end of June. However, there's a provision in the regulations--it's allowed by the act--that says any part of it can be slightly different for a transition period. That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about a new proposed transition period for just the selection criteria for the skilled workers, and presumably for entrepreneurs and investors, although we're not talking about that.

It would mean that the whole act, with the security features, the appeal to the immigration and appeal division, the renaming, and all of the restructured things would come into force, but there would be this transition provision from June to January, with the different pass mark.

They would do all of that by means of a regulatory change, which is right at the back of your package of regulations. Now it says one thing, and he proposes to change that to another thing.

The Chair: Judy. We're talking simply about retroactivity and that sort of thing.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Winnipeg North Centre, NDP): Yes, I have a number of concerns. The first concern I have after hearing the minister's announcement is in fact the clear signal that he wants to stick to the June 28 proclamation date. I think one of the things we heard almost to a person in these hearings is that this proclamation date--this end to the process--is problematic. Given the serious problems that have been raised with the regulations, I think every witness has been saying to us we should, as a committee, be asking the minister to delay the process and look at a proclamation date several months beyond that and take the time necessary to do the job right.

I think the first recommendation we should make as a committee is to go to the minister and say, this is what we're hearing and we need to change this.

I have some other problems with the proposal. In effect, only people who applied before December 17 and get accepted before June 28 will be here under the old rules. That's it.

The Chair: No, not under the old rules; if you read it carefully, the old rules go to January 2003 if you've applied before December 17.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: This is what I've understood from his statement. If you've applied prior to December 17 and not received a selection decision before June 28, you continue to be assessed under the current criteria. If you've applied prior to December 17 and have not received a decision prior to January 1, 2003, you are subject to the proposed selection criteria and a proposed pass mark of 70.

So the pass mark is reduced but the criteria are in place. Whatever we end up with, if it is anything close to the criteria we're dealing with now, you can be darned sure people are going to be out of luck anyway, whether you lower the pass mark or not.

¿ (0930)

The Chair: I know, but we're changing that, hopefully. The other thing is that January 2003 is the key mark. You have between now and 2003 to do all the work on the backlog to process as much as you possibly can.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Sure, but you also run into the possibility of some foot-dragging on processing in that period of time. I think we've got to be very vigilant as a committee to make sure this little window of opportunity isn't used against those people who feel they're qualified now.

The Chair: Okay, so you're saying move June 28. And what do you do about retroactivity?

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, my next concern has to do with the establishment of a date for rules coming into effect based on prepublished dissemination of regulations that have no authority, no weight. They're there for consultation, for input and feedback--for all Canadians, including this committee and parliamentarians--and the minister is still suggesting that be a date upon which we set up a divide, that we use as a transition date. I have real problems with that date. Is it ethical? Does it have any weight in law? Does it make sense? No, it's the date by which these regulations were posted for feedback.

Now, presumably something that is prepublished for consultation is not a final product. It makes a mockery out of the whole process if in fact there's no room to change it. So I think that date is wrong.

Most of the testimony we heard was, as the Alliance just suggested, to set a date when these regulations and the act come into force and make that your cut-off date. Many of the witnesses suggested there's nothing wrong with a parallel system. You can run two together and--

The Chair: In actual fact, that's what we have now, but you're suggesting it's not long enough and the starting time might be wrong.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes, and in fact I come back to my first point, which is I think we're kidding ourselves if we think this proposal is a big change from what we already had.

The Chair: No, no, I said it was a first step. But I don't want to argue; I'm just trying to get your ideas. I'm not trying to be judgmental or anything at this point in time; I'm just trying to get some ideas.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But I think there's only a small window and limited opportunity for people to actually be accepted under the old rules. After June 28, according to this release, you're out of luck; you're on the new proposed grid.

Now, we can think we're going to make all kinds of changes, but the way the minister presented this in the House, he hasn't signalled that he's looking at a complete revamping of the proposed grid and significant changes to the--

¿ (0935)

The Chair: Well, I would hope so, but that's another topic, and that's the topic for the report.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: But we can never assume that, though.

The Chair: I'm just saying right now let's focus on retroactivity, start dates, and so on.

So far, I've heard from a few of you.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I didn't expect we were going to be doing this this morning, but that's fine.

I would expect people to criticize the announcement, but to suggest he didn't send a signal, that's mind-boggling to me. He has said clearly that the effective date of June 28.... And you have to pick a date in this December. I frankly don't care if it's December 31 or December 17. But they have selected December 17. If you want criteria, maybe we picked a day that was the first time the temperature went below zero in Ottawa. Who cares what the criteria is? It's a date that is selected. Yours is just as arbitrary as this one, I suppose. But this one would have at least a reason that I can understand, which is the date of the gazetting of the regulations. Certainly, they are not in force; they are just gazetted. But it is a date when you go to the public, and you say, here it is, boom, here are the regulations. From this day forward, from this day back, this is going to be the day. We could argue forever about whether or not that makes sense, but I think that is a waste of our time.

He has sent a clear message in my view that he is prepared to consider changes to the grid. We have heard from deputations. He has heard from members of this caucus on that matter and he has listened. He has heard from you and he has listened. I think the signal is very clear.

I don't think we should be fighting windmills as to, oh, we have to change this date because we don't think he is going to change that particular mark. A government minister has a job to do. He or she is given the task of bringing in a bill. It can't float around there forever. In fact, I saw what happened to all the hard work done on the citizenship bill as a result of it floating around forever--it got killed. Maybe that was done to some people's joy, but certainly not to mine since I did so much work on it from the government side. But it got killed.

We have to have targets. We have to have dates. I think it was Clayton Ruby I saw interviewed who said it was common sense, and he was delighted to see the changes, and it looks like the minister....

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: It was Michael Green.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Okay. I think that message is there.

Our job, rather than fighting over what date this should be, frankly should be to work.... In my view, the most important aspect of this--

The Chair: You've covered the date. What do we do with retroactivity?

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I'm trying to--

The Chair: I'm trying to move you along, that's all.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I sometimes get the feeling there is going to be a minority report in this committee coming from the government side.

I think what we should be doing is taking a look at the grid, which to my mind is the most important aspect of this whole thing. If that grid is set up properly.... I like, for example, one of the suggestions that was made about 10 points on the grid for the adaptability section for community support. Personally, I would like to see us make a recommendation that it stand alone; or, as another option, that we increase the adaptability section to 15, instead of just 10, to allow for more consideration of that community support. That is the kind of thing that I think will resolve the concerns of the witnesses. They have been given a very good, large, open window of time here in which to apply.

Judy, you even said that we heard them ask to extend the date by several months. That, in effect, is what has happened, as our researcher has told us. The bill allows--the regulations allow--for certain parts of the regulations to have an adjustment period, and that is what we're seeing here. I just don't see how we can see that this is anything but good news, and we should get on with the nuts and bolts of the grid.

The Chair: Jerry.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: I certainly understand Paul's point coming forward about December 31 and December 17, but my view is that, in general, when we look at setting dates, the day that information is gazetted most people get a different perspective of what should happen. If you delay the times when you implement what is being gazetted, you will set yourself up in future bills; there will be an expectation that you may have two weeks or three weeks, and a gush of all kinds of things can happen in that space.

I think there is reason to say that December 17 is the appropriate day. If we need to make changes, if it's unfair, then I think we have to do it in the criteria that's structured, not the date.

Second, I believe the intent of all the witnesses I heard was that we need time to deal with the backlog appropriately. I believe the intent of the minister's comment was, no, we won't do it in six months, we'll make it a year, and we'll give the appropriate time to deal with that backlog. So in terms of the tons of applications we have, my understanding was, look, by June they'll just wipe them out and push on. Now the minister has said that won't happen.

I compliment the chair--and I don't often do this--on saying that the task of this committee is now to convince the minister and the bureaucracy that we need an appropriate number of people to deal with those applications. Our focus isn't necessarily correctly placed. When we talk June 28 to January, our focus has to be this: how do we have the resources to process all of those that we need to process and satisfy what the witnesses have said?

The minister has proposed an extra six months to deal with the backlog. In my view, what we need to do is say, that's wonderful, and we accept it with the proviso that you put more money into the people required to make sure that backlog is processed. I think that kind of compromise would lead all of us to the same conclusion, that we're not in a crazy regime in a rush to try to dump everybody by June 28.

The spirit of the argument is that there is a distortion for new applicants and we need to make some changes. Obviously that door is wide open for any recommendations from this committee. To relieve the tension and pressure, going to December 31 and putting more people in to get the old process out of the way will help. This committee now has, I think, a major task--that is, looking to the new applicants and what we deal with, the changes we wish, the changes the witnesses have brought forward, and then functionally devoting our time to what is most appropriate for us.

I think the direction this committee now needs to go in is to look at what's fair to all of the applicants after that December 17 date and to put things in place for them.

¿ (0940)

The Chair: And we'll get those numbers, too, because I don't know how many have applied since December 17 under the proposed prepublished gazettes.

Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou--Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, the Minister wanted the new act to enter into effect on June 28 and he explained why. However, he made an exception for everything pertaining to this matter of the situation in which people find themselves who have filed applications that have not been processed. So there is some leeway there. I understand that we can bring the act into force on June 28, provided we find fair and equitable solutions for those persons who are already in the system. I approve of that orientation.

Now as for people who have filed an application and who are at one stage or another of the review of that application, that is to say those who filed applications before December 17 and those who have applied since December 17, we must look at their situations and try to see where the fairness measure is. First of all, it seems to me we should provide for a refund of expenses to persons who filed before December 17 and those since the 17th until the rules entered into effect. If we want talk about fairness, we have to put ourselves in the situation of a person who applied before December 17.

What is the situation of a person who files an application today, on February 28, at an immigration office somewhere in the world? To what rules is that person subject today, on February 28? The rules that officials will apply to that person are the existing rules. They aren't the rules we are discussing or that the Minister is studying in his office. On what rules does the person develop an orientation as to his or her chances of being accepted? Under the existing rules, it will be that way until the day the new rules are enacted.

If we want to be fair to those people who filed their applications before December 17 or who will be filing applications until the new rules enter into effect, well, in my view, they must be able to be reimbursed if they are to be subject to the new rules, with which they were not even familiar at the time of their application. If they agree to continue to be subject to the process, knowing that there will be new rules starting on such and such a date, in my opinion, fairness requires that the situation be this: they take the exam based on the current rules; if they are rejected under the present rules, they may have the choice of submitting to a new examination under the new rules. That would be perfectly fair in that case.

¿ (0945)

[English]

The Chair: Okay, I don't want to spend any more time on this.

No. We're going to discuss this on Monday when we come back--

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a point of order, then.

The Chair: Just for clarification, then, because I have two or three other questions that I want to ask here. Food for thought is all this is.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I would just like the staff maybe to get back to us with an answer to the following questions.

First, is it clear--based on the minister's statement--that only those who applied before December 17 and have their application dealt with before June 28 will be considered under the old rules?

The Chair: You can ask that of the minister, but we'll get you an answer.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Based on what the minister said, you have to have applied before December 17, and your application decided before June 28. I think we have to just--

The Chair: No.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: He extended that to December 31.

The Chair: He extended that to January 2003. That's pretty clear, Judy.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: It's a six-month extension, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Is it under the old rules is the question.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Under the old rules--it's a six-month extension.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Under the old criteria. This is right out of the minister's statement.

The Chair: Yes, under the old rules, it's January 2003. It's in the backgrounder.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's clear.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: What's clear?

The Chair: To January 2003, it's the old rules for those who applied before December 17. That's clear, at least to everybody else, but you're still questioning it.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, ask the minister that.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: My second question is with respect to Jerry's point about the normal process for when rules come into effect, based on when they're gazetted. It seems to me there are two stages. One is gazetting in terms of prepublication for public consultation.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: Right.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: The second step is actual gazetting in terms of the finished product. Is that not the appropriate date before making a delineation point?

The Chair: Why don't I get you a little precedent of how this place works, because every bill, every law, has regulations, and for every law, regulations have to be prepublished. Let's find out exactly what the law says about prepublished gazetted rules, when they come into force and so on, just so you have some background.

As to the other two little issues I want to talk about before our witnesses get here, I'm asking you to open up your minds, and let's talk without...

On welfare as a sponsorship bar, what do you think? Right now the regulation says if you're on welfare you can't sponsor anybody. Our witnesses have said certain things. I'd like to know, because this is one issue that I'm sure is part of the report that we might want to discuss. So right off the top...and again, it doesn't have to be intensive debates and the chair is not trying to limit anybody, Steve, or even trying to set anybody up; I just want to know what we're going to do.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: The issue is a financial one. The person is committing themselves to a financial contract. That's the whole purpose of the thing, to avoid financial burden elsewhere. If a bank would not accept that individual to take up that kind of a financial contract, why should the average taxpayer be prepared to do that?

It has nothing to do with human rights. It has nothing to do with social fairness, or profiling, or anything else. It has to do with a person's ability to fulfill a financial contract.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Does that include even a family member, as an example, sponsoring your spouse or your children if you're on welfare?

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, because the exercise is, does someone have the financial capacity to fulfill the contract that they are making? That's the issue.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, you won't be surprised to hear that I do not share my colleague's vision, far from it. I believe that, in sponsorship or family reunification cases, it is absolutely odious to tell someone that he is unable to discharge his responsibilities, that the state must help him and, as a result, that we punish him by preventing him from having someone who is important to him come who could help him take on more economic responsibilities.

It is quite clear in my mind that that should not be in the report. I find it discriminatory and appalling.

[English]

The Chair: Judy, this is probably your issue too, but I'll come back to you in a moment.

Yvon, do you have any comments?

[Translation]

M. Yvon Charbonneau: I put that question myself to one of the witnesses, who expressed the view that a person on welfare can sponsor someone else. I wasn't very much in favour of that at the outset, but I listened to his argument and it touched me.

We tend to generalize by saying that, if a person is on welfare, that person can scarcely support himself or herself, and it is hard to believe that that person can support another person. However, we were told that that other person could help the first person solve his problems. We have to see whether that is generally the case or whether these cases were exceptions that were cited as examples.

So I was touched by that argument.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Judy...

I'm sorry. Madeleine.

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mr. Chairman, may I add something?

When you look at current poverty, I'm not talking about immigrants, but poverty in general, we see very clearly, for example, that single mothers find themselves in situations of poverty. Why are things better in families where there is a father and a mother? I believe that can also apply to people who are immigrants.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'll pass for the moment. I'm still trying to figure out the grid. I still have questions.

The Chair: You should know that the current situation is that they mostly do it on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The proposed regulations that we are reviewing bar that. They essentially say no.

The current law or how we've been working for the past little while is essentially on H and C, the low-income cut-off; there are a number of... So it's discretionary, to a certain extent, but these new proposed regulations essentially say no.

That's just a background. I don't want to force anybody to comment on this right today. You don't have to. We can do it tomorrow.

Yvon.

[Translation]

M. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, will we have another opportunity to discuss orientations as we are doing this morning, somewhat informally, or is this the only opportunity we will have?

[English]

Is it the only opportunity we have to discuss freely like this before the--

The Chair: No. You will be able to discuss freely Monday.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Monday as well?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: On other aspects?

The Chair: Yes, on all aspects, because we're going to have a report and everything before the minister and the department come on Tuesday.

Steve.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I tend to agree with Yvon and Madeleine on the principle. My difficulty is how we do it. Because if it is in fact sponsoring someone, a spouse, who is going to come here with a job offer or something to that effect, then you're going to get that person off welfare. And it only makes sense to allow that to happen.

Where I have some difficulty, and again I don't know how or where we make the changes, is if we're just going to allow for someone to sponsor someone else who's also going to become a welfare case. And then you just keep the cycle going.

And I have great difficulty with, whether a person is on welfare or not, keeping their children away from them. I think we have to separate the issues when it comes to children and say, because it's a provincial government responsibility, that the objective of the provincial government should be to get this person off welfare, to let them get on with the dignity of a job, etc. But penalizing them by keeping their kids away from them is not something I would support.

But on the other hand, can they just sponsor somebody who again is going to come here and apply and obtain welfare?

I don't think we want it to be totally open-ended. And there have to be some criteria that perhaps are tied to (a) the kids and (b) whether or not this person is bringing in some economic security that would help get the individual off welfare.

¿ (0955)

The Chair: Thank you, Steve, for reinforcing our dilemma that we can take a week to think about. Because that's exactly the trade-off we might want to look at.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: But the reason I asked this is because I don't know how, and I'm hoping to get some direction and suggestions as to how we might be able to accomplish that while not just saying anybody can sponsor anybody, regardless of whether or not you're on welfare.

The Chair: And we will do it.

Regulations could be fairly specific if people wanted them to be.

On the third one, just before we get to the 10 o'clock witnesses, again, if you want to say something, fine; if not, don't worry about it. We'll discuss them again.

But the subject is refugees in limbo. Comments? This is only a precursor to hopefully some bigger discussions.

Madeleine.

[Translation]

Mme Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm not in the department, but it seems very clear to me that, from the moment a person is recognized as a refugee here, that person should have permanent resident status. If the court has ruled and recognized that person as a genuine refugee within the meaning of the act, that person should obtain permanent resident status. Assuming an error of one percent is made... In any case, I believe it is unacceptable that people should be in a way non-existent in a country such as this and their children deprived of education beyond the secondary level. It makes no sense.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

Anybody? Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I'm sorry.

As you could guess, Mr. Chair, I would certainly agree with Madeleine. And I think that was the sentiment expressed over and over again, both in the Bill C-11 hearings and during the regulations.

I know you yourself indicated some concern about why there hasn't been any movement from the department over recognition of this fact and the need to grant permanent status immediately upon acceptance and landing as a refugee.

I'd like to hear from someone why the department keeps coming back with anything but this recommendation. What's the hold-out? Why does it keep reappearing as a concern and an issue?

The Chair: Well, you may want to ask the minister and the department that on Tuesday.

I can only tell you that under the present system--and there have been court cases since then, of course--the proposed regulations say that even after the IRB has determined that you are a refugee, there's a process by which you can get the permanent residence, but you have to get into signed affidavits and so on and so forth. So there's another process after the refugee determination system.

I think in Bill C-11, you're right, some of us had commented, “Why should it take so long after that initial stuff?” We can get some background information for you. But as well, it becomes a ministerial and department sort of...do you have the political will, in a sense, to move that much quicker. That, I think, is the sentiment of most of the witnesses.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Certainly we need some information from the department to look at the current practice, that those granted refugee status then have to go through all this other documentation. How many then are being dropped out? They're failing that category to demonstrate that the extra transition period is worthwhile or is accomplishing any purpose.

The government is saying it doesn't trust the IRB because regardless of what the IRB does in granting status, it's still not good enough. So that certainly reflects on that process. That whole issue needs to be sorted out.

You would certainly think that once someone was declared, they would have met all the criteria and it would be a one-stage process. It looks like the government doesn't accept even the independent IRB's designation--it's going to make up its own mind independent of that. We just need more information around that.

À (1000)

The Chair: Yvon, do you have any comments?

[Translation]

M. Yvon Charbonneau: They are similar in importance, Mr. Chairman. I listened to all the testimony on this subject, and many explained to us in a reasonable manner, I thought, that permanent resident status should be granted more readily, or even immediately.

Mr. Chairman, it is 10 o'clock, and I see you are about to put an end to this exercise. I would like to make a suggestion based on a somewhat painful experience I had last week regarding this matter.

I carefully reread the summary of the impact study on the regulations. It is a very well done document which very clearly explains the current state of affairs, the reasons for the changes, the changes and their impact, and does so in 24 sections. All the aspects of the question have been grouped together in 24 sections.

In the documents prepared for the committee by the Legal and Government Affairs Division, the witnesses' views are summarized according to a completely different system. It begins with skilled workers, then moves on to removals, then to refugees. It's a completely different order. It's very awkward when the two instruments are set side by side. You have to consult the regulations in order to understand what you're doing. If you could give us an instrument that follows the order of the 24 sections, that would be very helpful. It wouldn't be very difficult for you. The part on skilled workers, instead of being first, would be in the same position as in the impact study. We could immediately compare the impact study and our witnesses' proposals, and we could get an idea more quickly.

At the moment, it's like a puzzle where you have to redo the exercise. It's a pain and it takes too much time. It would be much easier for us if you put it in the same order. It's a suggestion I'm making. Even our brief should reflect the same sequence. It would be much easier for everyone to appreciate our witnesses' input and that of the committee.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon, we've had that discussion. You should not confuse the government's impact study that came out in December with the committee's report, which merely reflects what the witnesses have said--our report, the final report, Report 2.

You must admit that all of the witnesses talked about the regulations, but you only have the impact statement. If you try to go through another book... The regulations are all over the place--family class is here, family persons are here, they're all over the place.

This is the first time a committee has done something like this, so I hope we can tell the government that in the publication of regulations they ought to make them simple, clear, and easy to understand in their format.

Bill C-11 is very well organized. We'll work with the research people and clerk here to make sure our draft report follows a format, so if people want to compare the impact study with what the committee is doing on an issue-by-issue basis, they can do that.

Your point's well taken, but you should understand that our report to date is on an issues-based response--based on what the witnesses have said, not on what the regulations or the impact statements are all about.

À (1005)

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: I think we are not so far--

The Chair: No, we're not so far.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Because the

[Translation]

impact study groups together the subjects which are scattered everywhere throughout the regulations. They made this effort to group them together under 24 headings to help us and to help anyone else.

The witnesses relied on that, and I think it would be simpler if we, the committee, could do the exercise at the same time. In any case, that's a suggestion. I would ask you to consider it before rejecting it.

[English]

The Chair: We're going to try our best.

I'm sorry, Steve. Go ahead.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I agree with Paul.

The Chair: Well, Paul had a question mark beside... he wants more information. So we'll get more information.

We'll move to our witnesses, and then we may have some time to discuss... I wouldn't mind some input on adaptability factors, which we obviously will discuss in our report.

We're going to take about an hour to hear from the Canadian Labour Congress. We have David Onyalo, who's the national director of the anti-racism and human rights department, and Hassan Yussuff, executive vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

I'm sorry, I have two witnesses between 10 o'clock and noon, Mr... I told you that if we could get to you we would.

So we'll deal with the CLC, and if we have some additional time between now and the 11 o'clock witness, which is the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, we'll deal with that.

Welcome. Thank you so much for your input to date. If you would take about seven or ten minutes to summarize your brief, that would give us all an opportunity to ask you some questions with regard to your recommendations. Perhaps you could focus on your recommendations and insight, because I believe we have a copy of your brief already.

Do you have one for us?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff (Executive Vice-President, Canadian Labour Congress): I should explain, Mr. Chair, our intent obviously is to present a brief. We have a verbal presentation we'd like to make today, which we did discuss with the clerk, and we will be submitting a formal brief highlighting the points you want to comment on today.

First I should begin by thanking the committee for the opportunity to present this morning. Given the short notice, and of course the 25 million other things going on in the congress, we're pleased to be here with you.

We do believe this process is really important and integral to how we shape Bill C-11 and ultimately the regulations. I do have to say that as I was listening to the committee's deliberations, the magnitude of the regulation as it's been written right now would require at least three lawyers on a good day to try to figure out what exactly is in there. They're so lengthy in terms of the content. I hope they can be simplified to allow ordinary people to have access to them in the context of dealing with immigration and refugee matters.

The Canadian Labour Congress represents and speaks on behalf of 2.3 million workers and their families. We're a democratic organization and accountable to our members through our international political process, conventions, conferences, and standing committee. The CLC's support for progressive immigration policy is guided by the basic notion of human rights, democracy, equality, and collective responsibility.

Our presentation today will focus on the broader social and economic discussion and reflect skill shortages, unemployment, layoffs, and training. The current legislative review process on immigration and refugee issues cannot be separated from ongoing public debate in these areas of public policy, including the current review of the federal employment equity legislation.

Our full brief, citing specific clauses in Bill C-11 and the regulations, also covers other areas such as refugee protection, the determination system, family reunification, sponsorship, permanent residency, and others.

Moving to economic issues and workers' rights, we have never accepted the notion that immigration should be tied to Canada's economic and labour market requirements. We support an open immigration policy on the grounds that diversity is good for our society and that population growth creates its own demand and prosperity.

Our answer is an economic strategy based on full employment and equality, one where all workers, including immigrants, have the right to secure a well-paying job. It means a society where employment barriers faced by people of colour, women, persons with disabilities, aboriginals, gays, and lesbians are eliminated. It also means employment equity, along with qualification recognition, for newcomers, particularly from the south.

On investment in training, Canada's policy on training should be complemented by an immigration policy that allows us to access skills and experience that newcomers bring from other countries. Immigration should not be used as an emergency or temporary solution for shortfalls in the Canadian labour market.

We have for a long time advocated policies requiring employers to invest in training of their workforce rather than simply using a temporary immigration well. When skilled workers are needed, every worker should have the access to workplace training, retraining, and basic skills upgrading on an ongoing basis.

The massive cuts in federal training dollars and the shift in the cost of training almost entirely to the individual worker and student is contributing to the skill shortages in the skilled trades. The repeal of the National Training Act in 1996 has reversed a long history of federal support for workplace training that started in 1910.

As the rhetoric swells about a skilled workforce for a new economy, the portion of the workforce training supported by employers continues to fall. Whether they are old economy or new economy, businesses--and even employers in the public sector--are not investing in workplace training. There is virtually no support by employers for part-time workers or those in the low end of the income scale. If workers are young, forget it.

Concerning recognition of learning and skills, we note that Bill C-11 and its regulations do move away from the old criteria of assessing skilled workers tied to a designated occupation. We strongly endorse a fair and equitable system that assesses and recognizes prior education, knowledge, skills, and abilities of workers. However, we are opposed to the “successful establishment” criteria whereby points will still be awarded on the basis of age, language, skills, qualifications, and experience in skilled occupations. The number of points is still tied to the perceived demand of the Canadian labour market.

Prior learning assessment and recognition could be a very positive step towards giving working people a chance to have their knowledge and experience recognized and formally validated. It sounds very simple that workers should get credit for much of their life and work experience--in other words, informal learning. However, in practice what we have seen in implementation of PLAR is the emphasis on assessment of work instead of the recognition of their skills and knowledge, guided from life and work experience.

On the subject of foreign credentials, where immigrants arrive with all the hopes and aspirations of using their skills and knowledge in Canada, we have put up major barriers by not recognizing the qualifications and credentials they worked hard to achieve in their home country. The CLC and people of colour have been critical of the lack of recognition for the education, skills, and talents of newcomers to Canada, particularly from Latin America, Africa, and Asia.

A clearing house for international credentials that will assist in the elimination of systemic bias against immigrants, from the south in particular, should be established. We must also link this discussion with our work on apprenticeship and employment equity.

Last but not least, concerning human rights obligations, it is worth highlighting three other areas of general concern--disability rights, same-sex rights, and head tax. These are an important part of our human rights work. We are calling for the repeal of the head tax on immigrants and their families. This tax has a negative impact on family reunification and has no place in the immigration legislative framework.

The requirement that couples must cohabit in conjugal relations for at least a year should be eliminated from regulations because of its negative impact on the gay and lesbian community. We're also calling for the elimination of discriminatory and offensive paragraph 19(1)(a) of the Immigration Act, which states that Canada will not allow persons with disabilities to immigrate to Canada because they might cause excessive demands on the Canadian health and social service system.

À (1010)

In closing, Mr. Chair, I want to say something. I hope the committee, in its work and its final recommendation to Parliament, will at least make some very important acknowledgements. It would seem to us that far too often and to a large extent immigrants have not been given their full due in this country. It has been expressed too much through the public media and other sources that immigration is something that has not served the interests of this country. We want to reiterate, as a trade union movement, that we believe immigrants and immigration have contributed to the success of this country and should be embraced. The immigration department, along with other agencies of government, should put resources toward counteracting the negative aspects of immigration policies throughout this country.

We have done a tremendous amount of work to influence our own membership, of course, on the positive impact that immigrants have brought to this country and to the strengthening of our own movement in our communities across this country. I think it's critical that the committee in its final assessment make some direct statement on this matter, because for far too long.... We feel we're advocating on behalf of one of the most successful policies we've had in this country, and it doesn't get the kind of support that is needed to ensure that Canadians get rid of this myth that immigrants come here to steal Canadian jobs and contribute to the demise of our society.

Thank you very much.

À (1015)

The Chair: Thank you, Hassan, and thank you for your brief and for saying that. I believe all of us would probably agree with what you've said.

I like to think that Bill C-11, which is the framework legislation, does proudly talk a little bit about the value of immigration to this country and in fact the value of our immigration and refugee policy to the world, because we are in fact a guide and a model for other countries as to how we can live, hopefully, in self-respect and as a multicultural, bilingual country.

I think you've said it very well and I know that you're doing your part, and we want to do our part. I think collectively we can bring more light to the positive aspects of immigration. So thank you, Hassan.

We'll move to questions.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much, and welcome to the committee today.

You made a lot of general comments, but I would like to turn it back to you and ask what about unions in general. What is their responsibility to provide access to unions? What are the specific programs that unions are creating for the special immigrant sector to especially deal with what we often hear about, namely that Canada is going to have a trade skill gap?

It looks like the government plan, of course, is heavily weighted on academic skills and credentials from institutions. The other side of it, of course, is that the skilled trades, which will not be able to get points in that sector, will have to come in through the special provincial nomination program. But I'm asking where the union responsibility is. Where are the union financial resources and special programs that you're creating and doing to complement the overall Canadian workforce, especially in the skilled trades, to provide special encouragement programs for the immigrant community, such as mentoring and special, sympathetic programs for individuals who may have a language problem but yet have high skills? Will the union provide a special track for them to get full union status and to get integrated into the work community?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Thank you very much for your question. I think it's a very good point that you've made.

We have been advocating, including right now with the new initiative launched by the human resources department, that the skill shortage we face in this country is twofold. One aspect is that we have transferred most of the responsibility, except for Ontario, to the provincial governments to deal with skills development. We have given them the money, and we have got little in return. I have to say that it's one of the biggest failures we have seen with the provincial governments, in that they've taken the money and not produced the skills that are needed to meet the needs of this country.

We have advocated in most of our collective agreements, but not all, the ratio between those who are tradespeople and the portion of apprenticeship that should come into the workforce. In this regard, we've tried successfully to deal with two areas. One, of course, is to ensure that an adequate number of apprenticeships continue to be developed to become tradespersons in the future, and, more importantly, to also address the issue of foreign accreditation.

As you know, there are thousands and thousands of immigrants in this country who have incredible qualifications from their home country, yet are not recognized. And this is a twofold problem. We ourselves do not have the ability to give them accreditation. The accreditation system is done through the provincial government, or the red sticker program, in which they would address foreign credentials and give them some weight. In some cases, if it takes you five years to become a journeyman, they can say, I'll give you three years' credit and then you will have to do two years of apprenticeship.

It seems to me--and I said this to people in the HRDC--that in our joint program with the provincial governments in getting immigration, because most of the provinces have an agreement with the federal government, it should be written into the agreement that each province will have an assessment program if they want to access immigrants through the federal government program. That would have to be a national program, because we have really a patchwork quilt across this country in how we address foreign credentials. In some cases we don't. I think the federal government has been trying to get the provinces on side, and I think we have to be far more aggressive.

I think unless we can address this issue, most of the immigrants we recruit based on skills will continue to not work in the skills they had when they were recruited. When they come to our country they end up cleaning washrooms, working as taxicab drivers, or working in restaurants picking up dishes across this country. So certainly I think that needs to be addressed.

We have been one of the strongest advocates. We want to be in partnership with both the government and employers to say that this must be done. The longer we wait, I think we're doing a disservice to Canadians and our economy as a national government.

Last, in regard to your last point about mentorship, as you know, in some areas mentorship is required more so than in others. One of the areas we've been advocating is around first nations mentorship. We have a large community in the west, especially Manitoba and Saskatchewan, of aboriginal populations that are growing enormously. There are young people who need a future and need to be in the trades, and we need to develop a mechanism to ensure those young aboriginal workers can get into the workplace and start taking apprenticeship programs.

It would require a lot more resources because it would mean somebody having to mentor those workers through a longer life cycle in that workplace. More importantly, we'd also have to deal with the racism and harassment that normally people would be faced with. If there are simply one or two aboriginal workers working in the workplace, they will encounter other kinds of problems.

We've been advocating for this to happen. Again, it falls in the provincial domain. I think the new skills initiative program relaunched by the federal government could make a serious contribution in trying to address these problems. But we also have to get, I think, more collaboration with the provincial governments because the provincial governments are saying, we run the provincial program as to how we're going to deal with skill shortages, and to a large extent, they have the agreement with the federal government and have the money right now.

We're doing the best we can, because we make sure that most of our workplaces are accessible. We ensure that newcomers to our workplace are able to integrate within the workplace and within the trade union movement. In that regard, we are absolutely serious about what we said here today about the whole question around skill shortages. It's one that I think this committee cannot divorce from the broader discussion around Bill C-11.

I think it is important that you address that too in your recommendations and report. The trade union movement represents two and a half million members. Most of the apprenticeship programs, not all, are worked out with the trade union movement in the context of the workplace.

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you, Paul.

Madeleine, then Judy.

[Translation]

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

In your remarks, you raised a lot of points that we have already heard. I would like to come back to one of them. You expressed fairly strong reservations--in any case, that's what I perceived--about the fact that age was becoming a negative criterion and, if I correctly understood, you said that you would like this kind of evaluation based on age to disappear. Did I correctly understand what you said?

[English]

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I think we highlighted, in terms of the point system, that points will be given based on age. As madame is aware, in the context of family reunification and also in the context of meeting our needs in terms of immigrants, that could have a negative impact on family reunification. I know age is not a criterion in terms of family reunification, but it can be considered because it depends on how one may want to define older workers. I'm not sure if that's the point you're trying to make that we highlighted, but in terms of the point system, age is one of the criteria that will be considered in the selection of new immigrants.

We're saying that it ought not to be so rigidly defined. We recognize that Canada would prefer to recruit young workers, but I think all workers contribute, and we ought to be at least reasonable in recognizing that if we're truly interested in attracting people to this country, we also need to be very careful that we don't set up systemic barriers that are going to prevent future immigrants from coming to our country.

The Chair: Thank you.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Thank you, Mr. Chairperson, and I'd like to thank the representatives from the CLC for being here. I think it's important that we hear from labour because when we're looking at this overall package and the impact on our ability as a country to open our doors to people with skills and trades in a whole variety of areas, there's no better voice to comment on that than the CLC.

My first question has to do with something we dealt with yesterday or the day before. We get into this whole issue that we can change the point system all we want, but if as a country we don't start to recognize the credentials that people bring to this land and give true merit to people's experience and training and accreditations that they received in their own land and apply them here, we're going to be in deep trouble, no matter how much we change this system.

One of the comments made the other day was that it's really the unions that are to blame because the unions keep out folks. They want to guard their own practices and limit the membership and restrict access. I just wanted to put that to you so we have a chance to dispel that myth and actually get down to the real barriers, in terms of people who come here with credentials and the work we need to do as a country, through government and through professional associations, to address those inequalities.

À (1025)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: As I said earlier, accreditation evaluation is done by provincial governments, and each provincial government has a different system across the country. It is critical that we don't create a bogeyman kind of syndrome, where we're blaming the trade union movement for the problem.

In terms of all the trade areas in which our organization represents our affiliates, every one of those trade areas is regulated by a provincial regulation. If a province were to have a mechanism for assessing foreign credentials, and they would give whatever weight it is that they felt those credentials rightfully should be given, we have no mechanism for standing in the way of that. Once that is done, employers can then recruit individuals and say, okay, now you have a three-year credit towards this qualification, so you have to serve two years in apprenticeship.

What we have in this country is far too small an employer pool hiring apprentices, so we're seeing less and less training taking place. We need to recognize that, in the absence of hiring of apprenticeship, we're not going to develop tradesmen. Our demands have been very clear: we need to increase the apprenticeship pool. One way of increasing the apprenticeship pool is to give recognition of foreign credentials and allow those people to get into the pool.

We don't set up the regulation; the provincial government sets up the regulation. We're not like the doctors. We don't have a self-regulatory body to run our system. The system is governed by the provincial regulations. It's critical to put that in its rightful place, because I think it's false to suggest that the trade union movement is opposed to this.

By the way, I was a tradesperson. I know all about the trades system. I served three apprenticeships in the years that I worked in General Motors, so I know very much about how the system does operate. All of it was governed by provincial regulation. For each one of those apprenticeships I served, I got credit because I already had a certificate. I didn't have to serve the full five years that was required.

So it's critical, Judy, to put this back in its rightful place. It is the provincial and federal governments that need to work out a system of assessing foreign credentials. Despite all the rhetoric, we have not achieved that in this country in a uniform way.

The Chair: Great, thank you.

One more question, Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: One of the things we're trying to grapple with as a committee is the appropriate role for the federal government. So often we hear that's provincial jurisdiction and we can't meddle. We got a little concession in the preamble of Bill C-11 to acknowledge the role of the federal government.

In your view, is that critical in dealing with entrenched systems within some provincial governments, and systemic barriers within some professional associations that require a federal leadership role and some mechanism by which we can have a national system of recognizing, in a fair way, credentials from all over the world?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: As I have said many times, publicly too, under the agreement the federal government worked out with the provinces to give them a certain percentage of immigrants that come to this country--the joint agreement, I think Quebec has one--

The Chair: Programs.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Yes.

I think it's also critical that the federal government take a look at those agreements and amend them to say, if you want to get a portion of the immigrants we recruit for Canada, you must have a foreign credential system for assessing people's credentials. That's the place to put it. Ontario attracts the majority of immigrants that come to this country, and it has no mechanism for dealing with foreign credentials.

The Chair: I like that idea. It's worth considering forcing them, on these nominee agreements, to do something on the accreditation.

Steve.

À (1030)

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I kind of like it too, but as the chair has pointed out, we don't have an agreement with Ontario and we can't seem to get an agreement on anything. Whether it's labour market development, housing or anything, we just can't get them to agree.

But it's a good suggestion that maybe this committee could make as a recommendation, at least, and start that ball rolling.

I have a couple of questions, if I might, about your organization. Are the construction trades now part of the CLC?

Mr. Hassan Yussuf: That's right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: So the CFL has folded and gone away, and you have them back in the tent?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: They haven't gone away; they joined the right organization.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Well, I'm glad to hear that.

There is a system for giving credit, in apprenticeship programs at the provincial level, for work experience. That could be a template for giving credit for foreign accreditation as well. Once again we are frustrated that all of this stuff, to be effective, has to go through the cooperative federalism system we have.

I didn't quite understand when you talked about using the immigration system to fill shortfalls in certain trades or certain areas. Did you say we should or should not do that?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: It seems to me that far too often, every time we've had a problem around skill shortages, we've historically run to immigrant pools to select. I think we need to be far more visionary about what to do about skill shortages in the country.

Certainly immigration is providing opportunities for us to bring in skilled workers, but it cannot be the only place to develop them. I think we're running out of options. European immigrants aren't coming to this country any more--they're not interested. They will come from some parts of Latin America, but in Asia and other places changes continue to happen, and we have less and less ability to attract people.

We need to encourage employers across this country and the provincial governments to put incredible resources into recruiting people. We're simply saying we cannot use that immigrant pool to solve the skill shortage in this country. It's not going to serve our long-term interests.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Are you aware that there have been some MOUs signed with unions in the construction trade to bring temporary workers in, and at the end of a two-year period perhaps allow them to apply for status here?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Yes, I'm aware of some of the temporary programs.

Again the department should not be encouraged to create an alternative program to our regular immigration system. Far too often, employers argue they can't find the skill sets in this country, or they can't solve the problem unless they get access to this pool. I think we do a disservice to Canadians if we continue to simply allow easy access to that. Ask workers across this country, where there's high unemployment, if they want to work in the construction trade.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: He's going to cut me off, so I want to get some more questions in.

The Chair: You're absolutely right.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I know I'm absolutely right, about that at least.

But am I hearing you say that it shouldn't be the exclusive method, but that it could be and should be a part of the solution, as well as more apprenticeship training programs going on?

By the way, at 10:35 a.m., I have a young son who'd better be in class studying to be a carpenter, and I appreciate--

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: We may want to sell him a union membership, too, so--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: He's with the union now. That's where he's studying, at the union hall. So don't worry.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Okay.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I don't know if you recognize that name, but--

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Yes, I do.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: --your predecessor was my dad, actually. He was the vice-president of the Canadian Labour Congress.

And I'm not an NDP. I never was and never will be.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: How about your son, maybe?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: You guys can sort that out after I leave.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: I want to get your thoughts on illegals who are currently in this country and what we might do or what suggestion you might have. It's particularly in the construction trades, particularly in the GTA, the Greater Toronto Area, where there are estimated to be as many as 20,000 people building homes and working in the infrastructure industry who are here illegally and have been for many years, and yet have no status, are probably not paying union dues, are certainly not paying workers compensation or certainly not getting health care, unless it's under the table. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might address that?

À (1035)

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Again, I'm usually very candid, so I'll say what I think and say what I say publicly and privately. I think we should declare a national amnesty for workers in this country.

The Chair: You must have been talking to Steve.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: No, but let me make a couple of arguments, and then--

Mr. Steve Mahoney: That was not a set-up, Mr. Chairman, I assure you.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I really want to say this with all sincerity and ask the committee members, by all means, to please indulge me. It seems to me that there may be 100,000 people--or maybe more--living in our country and working who should be helping to contribute to the national economy. They do. They're not allowed to receive anything in benefits. They're exploited by employers, and they have to operate as though they are some foreigners within their own country, and in that context they have no particular rights. I think it's critical for us to recognize that they contribute to the national economy on a daily basis. Why can't we simply recognize that we need them and declare a national amnesty?

In other countries, the United States, they have moved towards dealing with some aspects of amnesty for Mexicans, with a joint agreement. I think we could do that and it would not cause any disruption of our immigration system in this country. It would not give a green light to people to simply evade our immigration system or not come through the proper channels, but simply acknowledge that there are people who have been living in this country for over a decade illegally, with no papers and unable to work under the system and contribute in the economy in the way that they should. They work in the underground economy, and sometimes they don't pay taxes...not because they choose to, because the employer does.

If you really want to get rid of the underground economy, one of the first steps might be to address this real need in this country. This would be the human rights approach. It would be the Canadian approach, and I think at the end of the day we will benefit as a country for doing that.

The Chair: Jerry.

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

I really think your comment is well put. I would assure you that the Canadian government's policy at this point in time is Canadians first. Obviously, in many industries, Canadians first still doesn't fill the needs, and that then becomes a major problem. That's why we have illegals, I believe, working in some industry, and that's why we try to fill that industry with immigration to some degree.

I was interested in your position with regard to the provincial government and federal government and criteria, how the federal government can in fact help move the agenda forward to more national standards and operation when provincial governments, in reality, have control. Is the Canadian Labour Congress ready to stand up and make it very clear that some of that jurisdiction needs to be transferred or controlled to a degree on a national policy, and are you willing to oppose?

What I see happening in Ontario and in many provinces where there are competing interests for certain labour and controls is that provinces are very unwilling to give up any movement to the federal government, and we then come to head-bashing oftentimes.

I believe the Canadian Labour Congress has more clout and more ability to move that agenda forward by clearly stating that this is your position, this is where you feel we should be. To me, thinking through that process, you would have more leverage than the federal government would have in looking as though we're trying to take power from the provinces.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I don't want to delude you as to the amount of power we have. We do have some influence with our membership in the context in which we dialogue with them about the kind of problems we do encounter in this country.

But specifically as to the provincial and federal jurisdictions around the whole skills assessment and skills shortages and the need for us to take a federal approach to this matter, I think to put it in a simplified way, if you measure the loss to the national economy by not granting so many thousands and thousands of individuals accreditation for their credentials, it is just astronomical, even if you measure it simply in dollars and cents. The provincial governments are very slow in moving in this direction, because it means, yes, you might upset some people when you start doing this, but the reality is we have to do it at the end of the day. We've been advocating for it.

I was at the national conference with the Minister of Human Resources, where I basically said, we are prepared to sit down and work with you to achieve a national consensus on how we can assess foreign credentials in this country from a national level. All the provincial governments were there in attendance. It has been two and a half years since we had this discussion, and we're still nowhere close to resolving it. I think it's critical. We've been on record and we'll continue to be on record advocating. We've been advocating within our own circles that there needs to be change, and we aren't there yet.

À (1040)

Mr. Jerry Pickard: My point is--and it may be belabouring the point somewhat--that you have to be more than on record. You have to really bring the political pressure your organization can exert on the provinces in order for that to happen. Otherwise everybody around this table knows it won't happen.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: All I can do is assure colleagues that we are doing this right now provincially. In Ontario we're not getting any recognition, despite the fact they can see they have huge skills shortages. We've been advocating for change, and the government has chosen to ignore us. What they've done is make the rules worse in terms of dealing with the problem, rather than trying to assist in making it better.

The Chair: You still have one more question--a final question. I know Steve has another one. But does anyone over there? No.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a couple of questions.

The Chair: No, one.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Two?

The Chair: Pick your best. If they're short, you can have two.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: There are two areas I want to touch on.

You've mentioned the whole question of the point system and the new grid with respect to skilled workers. We've been grappling with this issue now for the last month. I want to ask you this. If we can't significantly change this new grid system, are we better off just to stick with what we have or some variation of it? You see, what we've hearing from the government is that this new grid makes sense from the point of view of making sure our economy adapts with the changing times so that we can meet new labour market projections, and therefore we have to have this kind of flexibility and broad-ranging requirements around education and higher learning and so on. On the other hand, we're told by most of the presenters who have come before this committee that we're going to exclude legitimate workers from around the world who have valuable skills to offer this country.

What do we do with this grid to be most effective as policy-makers around attracting skilled workers to Canada?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: We have some serious concern that it's not going to work and we're being very candid about that. Now, maybe the bureaucrats have already figured this out and they somehow have a magic solution. I've travelled throughout the world on a regular basis. I understand what's going on around the world, and if we somehow think that we have a magic solution to immigration, we don't. A lot of other countries are competing for the same group of immigrants we are competing for, and if we're not very careful, we're going to shut ourselves out of this whole debate.

[Translation]

The Chair: Yvon.

M. Yvon Charbonneau: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make sure I correctly understood because we have no text. At the start of his remarks, Mr. Hassan Yussuff seemed to object to the job market factor being taken into consideration with regard to immigration.

Do you object to that? Could you explain to a greater degree what I perceived as an objection or a reservation with regard to that factor being taken into consideration? It seems to me that, under Canada's present policy, this factor is considered together with other factors; it is not the overriding factor that conditions all the rest.

[English]

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Far too often, it seems to us, in trying to meet the future needs of the economy we simply say “Here's what we envision will happen in the future”, and then we structure immigration policy to deal with that. A large part of that has been around needed skills.

To a large degree, I think, we're seeing an incredible problem with this focus. I think Canada is going to need immigrants of all kinds, some with skills, obviously, and some with other talents, including education and being prepared to adapt to a changing economy. If we simply say that we have to continue to use this as a mechanism to solve our problem, then I don't think we're going to. I think it's been a tremendous challenge for decades.

Skill shortages require a whole series of factors getting in line at the same time. Immigration is only one tiny part of that. I think too often we use immigration to solve the skills problems in this country. We are simply saying that it's not going to work. We have to adapt. I think the new initiative that the human resources department has just put forth has incredible potential, but again, it has to be in concert with the work of the provinces throughout this country. They have the majority of the resources by the federal government through transfer of jurisdiction. What we're saying is that we're not producing the skill sets needed.

All we're saying in regard to Canada's future immigration policy is that it ought not to be looked at simply within the narrow context of how to solve the skills shortages in this country. It ought to be looked at in a broader context. We're going to continue to need people if we want to grow as a country, and in this regard we need to recognize that a number of different factors should be taken into consideration.

À (1045)

The Chair: Thank you.

Steve, one little one, and Judy, one little one.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Just briefly, Hassan, your point about the committee recommending that resources be put in place to celebrate, I guess, the success of immigration in this country, along with the need for it, is really valid. A number of us around this table have made that point.

I ask you, though, whether an awful lot of the people who work on the line in Windsor, say, or in the plant in the Sault or wherever have these same attitudes, which they get from exposure to the media or whatever, when they sit around Tim Horton's or the local pub and say “Isn't that awful? That bad immigrant”, and so on.

You have 2.5 million members. What can you do to help? If we were to put in place a program, how would you be able to communicate this directly to your members? Would you be willing to do that as a national organization?

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: First of all, we are doing it. I think we have the most extensive education program on immigration and refugee issues of any trade union body around the world, bar none. We do this on a regular basis in courses, conferences, and seminars. We have done a series of seminars throughout the country simply on immigration and refugee issues, what they contribute to the country and how we ought to see it in a positive way.

In terms of your recommendation, I think it's critical, if the committee should choose to do so, that the labour movement be seen as an ally. Our position is to advocate the strengths of what immigrants bring to this country. They not only built the country; they also built our movement. I'm a testament to that through my own presence here today.

So it's critical that they be recognized, but it's also important that we see it as an integral part of promoting what I think we have not done in this country even though it's one of the greatest assets Canada has had--namely, the ability to attract the people who have come here, who have brought their talents and their energy and their ability to work. Far too often immigrants are seen as those who come here to cheat and rob the system, and yet 99% of the immigrants who come to this country contribute to the success of this country. We don't tell that story. We don't tell it publicly and we don't tell it privately. We don't seem to do a good enough job there. We have been advocating this for quite some time, and we are prepared to work with whatever program the government sets up to do this, in a public way even more so.

We have limited resources, but we're putting in as much resources as we can.

The Chair: Well, we're going to take you up on your offer, and I'll tell you how in a moment.

Judy.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: I have a quick question on the retroactivity issue we started with this morning. In so doing, I just want to put on the record, Mr. Chairperson, and especially to Steve Mahoney, that I'm not beyond acknowledging I've made a mistake. The minister announced yesterday that in fact anyone who applied before December 17 is good until January 1 under the old rules. But we still have a problem of changing the rules midway through the stream.

The unions representing customs and immigration workers came before us and said that they didn't see a problem with running two parallel systems so that you don't have that ethical problem of changing the rules halfway through a process or halfway through someone's application. My question is, what would be your advice to us as a committee as we grapple with this issue of when the new rules, whatever they're going to be, come into effect, and how do you do that transition?

The Chair: I like the way you do that. You have culpa first and then mea.

Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis: Well, I just wanted to make sure... I heard you before.

The Chair: --and then you launched right into another great question there.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: I may or may not have the kind of answers that you're looking for. But I think it is critical. It has been pointed out that many members of Parliament have seen a slew of people showing up at their offices and telling them that they have a problem with this.

It is important to recognize that if it's a problem now for current families in the system, it will be a problem in the future. They need to recognize that maybe there ought to be another solution to this rather than simply accepting the one that's proposed by the department.

I have just one quick point. With regard to the point you raised about our members and the backlash and the anti-immigrant sentiments that they say. It is a fact. I'm not here to deny that. We are a reflection of society--our movement is. So I expect our member to say all the same things you hear in a broader society. Well, we don't accept that. We constantly challenge it and we take it on and say we're not going to simply defend people saying awful things about immigrants to this country, because that's not the reality and that's not the fact. And we challenge people to take that on a regular basis.

À (1050)

The Chair: Thank you.

In fact we are going to have two parallel systems. Judy wants them for a lot longer. That's what we're going to debate on Monday.

Hussan, first of all, thank you so much for your brief. Even though we don't have a copy, we will get it from you. I think you gave us an awful lot of good insight from the labour side of things, especially as it relates to skilled workers.

I do want to say this. The next stages of what the committee will do, once we get the regulations straight and right, is that we're able to then go out and promote and recruit throughout the world. This is where you can also help. The third phase of what we want to do is obviously deal on the resettlement side. When in fact we do get people coming to this country, what is it that we can do. I know that you do an awful lot of work on behalf of immigrants through your association, and I want to thank you for that.

Those are the other two parts where I think you can be very helpful and have been. I look forward to talking to you about those things.

Thank you so much.

Mr. Hassan Yussuff: Thank you so much.

The Chair: Members, while we have...

Mr. Narvey, I wish you would just leave it to me. I try to be a generous person. I have seven minutes and that's all I'm going to give you. I know you've given us a written brief and I'll give you seven minutes to tell us what your brief is all about.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey (Legal Researcher and Chief Operating Officer, Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think I have given a copy to almost everyone here except you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Narvey.

You can give us a seven-minute summary of your brief. I know you're a great fan of this committee--

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I am.

The Chair: We probably should make you an honorary member, but I can't do that.

Anyway, go ahead.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: I accept.

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Kenneth Narvey. I am a legal researcher and chief operating officer of a coalition of Montreal synagogues whose full and very long name is the Coalition of Concerned Congregations on the Law relating to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Including Those of the Holocaust.

[Translation]

I am a legal researcher and leader responsible for operations for a coalition of Montreal synagogues whose full name is the Coalition of Synagogues on Legislation Pertaining to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, Including the Holocaust. I would be delighted to answer questions in both languages if we still have a second or two.

[English]

What my brief says, which you will see--I'll say this as quickly as possible--is that, besides the immigration rules, you have before you the proposed rules of the four new divisions of the Immigration and Refugee Board. The existing adjudication division becomes the immigration division. The existing convention refugee determination division becomes the refugee protection division. The existing appeal division becomes the immigration appeal division, and there will be a brand new refugee appeal division.

Our view is that there are two excellent rules in the refugee appeal division rules, rules 38 and 38, which provide for intervention before the refugee appeal division. Rule 37 provides that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may almost as of right apply for, but almost certainly will be given, the right to intervene in a proceeding in the refugee appeal division. Rule 38 says that any other interested person, which might be the Canadian Labour Congress, which might be my organization, can apply to intervene before the refugee appeal division. And we say those are very well written.

Our second recommendation really is that those two rules, which are only in the refugee appeal division, should also be in the other three divisions.

Our first recommendation is still in the refugee appeal division. Rule 39 says that all of the rules of the division will apply to interveners, but with five exceptions. We say that those five exceptions should be struck out.

The first exception is a rule that relates to specialized knowledge. I think all four of the divisions have an excellent new rule that where a division of the board wishes to apply its specialized knowledge, it must first tell the parties what its specialized knowledge is, which of course may be false. It may be that such and such a country is a democracy when it isn't, or various other things. This gives the parties the opportunity to attempt to convince a division of the board that their specialized knowledge is mistaken. We say interveners--particularly the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, which has a great deal of specialized knowledge, but also other possible interveners such as the CLC, or such as ourselves--should be able to participate in that specialized knowledge process.

The second rule, which now will not apply, concerns constitutional questions. The person concerned or the minister can raise a constitutional question, but at the moment an intervener cannot. We say an intervener ought to be able to; the person concerned may not have the knowledge to do it. The minister may feel that a minister cannot say something is unconstitutional because, after all, Parliament passed it and Parliament can't be wrong. So that should be struck out.

There are two more that say appellants can withdraw their appeal and appellants who have withdrawn their appeal can change their minds and ask that the appeal be reinstated. And that doesn't apply to interveners. We say obviously it doesn't apply to interveners. Nobody but an appellant can withdraw their appeal; nobody but the appellant who has withdrawn it can ask that it be reinstated. So those should be taken out.

The last item is called reopening of an appeal. The rule says, where an appeal has been decided, a party--but it would only be the losing party--can ask that it be reopened on the grounds of a failure of natural justice. That would mean, for instance, if the division of the board were to rely on a piece of jurisprudence it hadn't pointed out to the losing party, giving the losing party a chance to argue about it, there would be a failure of natural justice. Under rule 39 as it's written, an intervener could not take part in that process. We say an intervener ought to be able to take part in it. Interveners such as the UNHCR, such as the CLC, such as my organization, such as most of the organizations that have appeared before you, have at times intervened in the courts, have the knowledge and the skill, and ought to be allowed to do so.

As I said, our second recommendation is that this same regime for intervener status should apply to all four of the divisions.

I'll take one more second to give the legislative authority for these things. For the refugee appeal division, there is a provision of the act that says the division can hear from the parties and the UNHCR and anybody else the regulation says, so that covers it. For the immigration appeal division, it's a court. Courts allow intervention.

The other two divisions have the powers of a commission under part 1 of the Inquiries Act. Those organizations allow intervention. The details are in my brief.

Thank you very much.

À (1055)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Marvin.

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Narvey is my name. N-a-r-v-e-y.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you for your intervention and for bringing to our attention the intervener status situation in sections 37 and 38 and your recommendations with regard to 39 and the other divisions, as you've indicated.

Does anyone have any particular questions?

I know you have a fuller brief than that, but I want to take this opportunity, Mr. Narvey, to thank you for it. We'll take it into consideration, obviously, when we start our deliberations when we return on Monday as it relates to the IRB. Thank you for all the hard work and for your past work on a couple of other issues this committee has dealt with.

Thank you very much.

Á (1100)

Mr. Kenneth Narvey: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's you and Mr. Mahoney who I remember were extremely nice to me the last time I was here, and it's a pleasure to be here again.

Thank you.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're going to move quickly to our next witness.

There's been a request for a break of a minute or two, so we'll take a minute or two.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're back.

It is my pleasure to welcome, from the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Dyane Adam, the commissioner, as well as Jack Jedwab and Gérard Finn, who join her.

Commissioner, welcome again to the committee, and thank you for your past interventions on Bill C-11. We look forward to your presentation on the regulations.

We also thank you very much for giving us a copy of your study, which you just made public, entitled Immigration and the Vitality of Canada's Official Language Communities, Policy, Demography and Identity. I think it's a very timely study too, so congratulations on some of that hard work you've done.

If you have an opening statement, obviously, take seven or ten minutes to go through your brief or recommendations, because I'm sure we will have some questions. If you want to talk a little bit about the study--and I'm sure it's the background for some of your comments--that would be most helpful too.

Thank you.

Á (1105)

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam (Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): Thank you very much, thank you very much for inviting us here to talk about the study that I launched earlier this week, but also, of course, any other question which you are considering, such as the regulations question, for example, and so on.

Coming back to the study, this is a ground-breaking study. In fact, it is the first of its kind to take an in-depth look at the issue of immigration and its impact on our social and linguistic fabric as a country and, more specifically, the impact on official language minority communities in Canada.

This study is part of a process undertaken by my office more than two years ago. In fact, in my first annual report, I identified immigration as an issue of vital importance for Canada's linguistic duality. As well, you will remember, as your chairman, Mr. Fontana, mentioned, that I came before this Committee in March 2001 to propose amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. You played a key role in ensuring that the new Act now includes appropriate provisions and objectives relating to official languages and minority official language communities. In fact, I thank you enormously for your leadership in this matter.

The study first presents a statistical portrait of immigration trends. The analysis of this data allowed us to develop a series of recommendations for the government. These are grouped under three main themes, the first being policy and principles, the second recruitment and promotion and the third settlement and immigration.

The study aims to assist the government in improving on some of the steps that it is already taking in this regard and to guide it in its future actions in this area.

[English]

I believe we must consider concrete ways to enable both linguistic groups to share equitably in the benefits of immigration. This is currently not the case. Immigration cannot be based solely on economic considerations. We must also consider our linguistic and social fabric as a nation.

Despite the fact that this issue was even raised as early as the 1960s by the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, very little has been done. I hope this study will be a first step in helping our government address this matter in its many dimensions.

First let me set the stage by quickly situating the issue in demographic terms. Historically, the English-speaking population has benefited from the arrival of immigrants, while the francophone population relied on natural increase for population growth. All of this changed with the decline of the francophone birthrate around the 1960s. Today we find ourselves with a significant gap between the number of English-speaking and French-speaking immigrants who come to Canada. More precisely, just 5% of our new arrivals are French-only speakers as compared with 48% English-only speakers, 4% who can speak both official languages and evidently a large proportion that do not speak either of the official languages; that stands right now at 43%.

So there have been almost nine times as many immigrants to Canada with English mother tongue as with French mother tongue. More importantly, once they have settled in Canada, eight out of ten immigrants adopt the English language.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

Most of the small number of Francophone immigrants who come to Canada settle in Quebec. The Quebec government is very much aware of the key role that immigration plays in supporting the vitality of the French language. Quebec has undertaken considerable efforts to recruit and integrate immigrants who know French. In this regard, Quebec is a good example to follow since they have made impressive gains in this area.

[English]

But where does this leave the francophone minority communities in the other provinces? Francophone immigrants who settle outside Quebec represent just over 1% of all the immigrants in the rest of Canada. The francophone population in the rest of Canada is, however, close to one million strong, representing 4.5% of the population or around 5% of the population outside Quebec.

So they're really under-represented with their 1%. We would expect a higher proportion of French-speaking immigrants to settle in the other provinces. In reality, within the Canadian population as a whole, those born outside the country represent almost 20% of the population, while among francophones outside Quebec the proportion does not even reach 5%.

These statistics speak eloquently, and two things are clear. First of all, francophone communities are not receiving a high enough proportion of French-speaking immigrants to sustain the demographic weight of their communities.

Second, the federal government has not undertaken special proactive measures to recruit French-speaking immigrants into francophone minority communities.

On top of this, once these immigrants have decided to settle in minority communities, considerable efforts are required to help them participate in and contribute to the life of these francophone communities.

[Translation]

Before discussing the measures that must be taken, I would like to point out that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has shown sensitivity to this issue and acknowledges that the government or its department has in fact not made direct efforts to recruit French-speaking immigrants. We now have a new act, one of the objectives of which, as you are perfectly well aware, is to support the commitment of the Government of Canada to enhance the vitality of the English and French linguistic minority communities in Canada and, of course, to take into consideration Canada's linguistic duality.

While this is definitely a step in the right direction, there is still a lot of ground to cover to make this objective a reality. In fact, the federal government must enunciate an integrated approach and put in place objectives, regulations and immigration policies with respect to linguistic duality in order to support its obligations under the Official Languages Act and contribute more effectively to the equitable demographic renewal of official language communities.

[English]

Citizenship and Immigration must do more in cooperation with francophones from official language minority communities to promote and proactively recruit in source countries for francophone immigration.

Federal-provincial agreements in the area of immigration, as shown in the case of the Canada-Quebec immigration accord, can have a profound impact on the selection and recruitment of immigrants. Therefore, It is vital that the provincial authorities be sensitive to those official language minority communities that wish to attract immigrants in support of community vitality. Citizenship and Immigration should work closely with those provincial governments that recently signed immigration agreements to ensure that the needs of the official language communities are satisfied in this domain.

However, simply encouraging French-speaking immigrants to settle outside of Quebec is not enough. Currently, half of all French-speaking immigrants who do settle west of Quebec switch to using English at home. This is in large part due to the fact that they are being drawn to English-speaking institutions. Measures must be put in place to assist them in maintaining the French language and in integrating into the minority official language community. This includes, among other things, informing them about institutions that are available to assist them in French and designing services tailored to their needs to help them adapt to life in Canada.

Á (1115)

[Translation]

In order to assist the minority official language communities in welcoming immigrants, they must receive support from the federal government at all levels of the process, but especially in the areas of settlement and immigration. The capacity to receive immigrants is greatly affected by the resources, institutions and structures in place to respond to their needs.

I therefore recommend that Citizenship and Immigration, Canadian Heritage and HRDC should support the creation of hubs or centres in the various official language communities along the model of the “carrefours d'intégration” in Quebec. These centres should be used to draw immigrants to the official language minority communities and to facilitate their adaptation, not only in Francophone communities, but also in Canadian society. This would of course be in a majority English provincial context, but it is possible to become integrated into a minority community, while participating fully in the social and overall life of that province and even be bilingual.

Integration is thus a two-way process that ultimately implies a change in the identity of the host community as well as of the new arrivals. This study thus encourages the official language minority communities to be prepared to adapt in order to meet the varied needs of the new arrivals.

[English]

The study also looks at the impact of immigration on the anglophone community in Quebec. This community faces challenges as well, although these are somewhat different from those of their francophone counterparts.

First of all, there is no doubt that the loss of English-speaking Quebeckers to other provinces has meant that the arrival of new immigrants has played a critical role in supporting the vitality of the English- speaking community in Quebec. Quebec's current share of English-speaking immigrants exceeds the share of the anglophone population in Quebec. The arrival of English-speaking immigrants has had a profound demographic impact, but it has also affected the identity of the anglophone population as it becomes more and more diverse in Quebec. Given the fact that one-quarter of English-speaking immigrants leave the province to settle elsewhere in Canada, the main challenge in Quebec is not so much attracting immigrants but encouraging these new arrivals to remain in the province, including outside the Montreal area.

So anglophone institutions in Quebec must be provided with the ability to counteract this phenomenon by instilling in immigrants a sense of community. English-speaking immigrants to Quebec must also be provided with improved access to French language training.

I would like to conclude by saying a few words about the proposed regulations that you are currently studying and that will take effect later this year.

Two weeks ago I submitted my comments and recommendations to CIC, which were copied to you, and in my view, as they are currently written, the proposed regulations are not an effective means of achieving the official languages objectives of the act. I was disappointed to find that there is no specific reference to this issue and I recommend that special or positive measures be included in the regulations to redress the imbalance in immigration between the official language communities and to ensure implementation of the new provisions in the Immigration Act relating to linguistic duality. As well, adjustments should be made to the points awarded for language in order to better reflect the importance attached to the knowledge of both official languages in Canada.

I would be pleased to respond to any questions you may have regarding these proposed changes.

Á (1120)

[Translation]

Lastly, I would like to conclude by citing the last Throne Speech and by saying, as was stated in that speech: “Linguistic duality is fundamental to our Canadian identity and is a key element of our vibrant society.” I firmly believe that immigration policies and the regulations that accompany the new Act cannot be limited to mainly economic considerations. We must ensure that they truly contribute to reinforcing the linguistic and social fabric of our country.

In short, in my view, governing a country is not like managing a business. You cannot consider only one objective of a society. A society is much more.

[English]

It's a lot more than a number at the end of a balance sheet.

[Translation]

Now I will obviously be pleased to answer any questions or to hear any comments.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Adam. I personally thank you very much for the recommendations with regard to the regulations, which obviously we'll have some questions on. And thank you very much for your recommendations and summary of what your study is all about.

I can only say that what the committee intends to do in the upcoming weeks and months is to talk a little bit about recruitment and promotion, which I think is in line with how in fact we market the country--

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes.

The Chair: --and its various dynamics around the world. And therefore some of the stuff you've talked about is going to be very useful, I think, including with regard to settlement programs, which is what this committee will also be looking at with our provincial nominee programs in various provinces.

So I think these suggestions and these ideas that have come forward will help us in the next phases once we get the regulations down right. Obviously, then, it's a matter of not only celebrating but going, as you suggested, and recruiting for our country, its various regions and provinces, and asking, as well, what do we do with people when they come here in terms of settlement programs. And we may very well have some questions about that.

But let's talk for a few minutes about the regulations.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Forseth: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I am sympathetic with your broad-brush statements, and those are facts, I suppose, of international trends of what is happening to the French language worldwide, which Canada may or may not be able to do anything about. But let's get right down to it.

On pages 47 and 48 of the regulations, subclause 68(1) says:

An applicant must identify at the time of application which of English and French is to be considered their first official language and which is to be considered their second official language.

This category is subject to a maximum of 20 points. Then it outlines three levels: high proficiency, moderate proficiency, or basic or no proficiency. Then it talks about the points in each one.

Now I refer to your letter dated February 14, on page 2, where you make specific recommendations to adjust these points. I'm having a bit of difficulty looking at the exact regulation and its words and your recommendations of how to change the waiting, because I think, in spite of everything else, this is where it gets to what you're feeling in awarding points for language proficiency.

If I understand correctly, you're saying the general recognition of being able to speak both languages is underrated, that we will assess a person's ability to function in their primary language, but if they also have moderate proficiency, according to the rules, in the second language, it is not given sufficient points. I'm having a little bit of difficulty relating the four recommendations with the rejigging of the numbers. We may need some help in that regard. That's my question.

Á (1125)

Ms. Dyane Adam: I'll respond to your first comment, and then let Dr. Jedwab respond to the system of points.

With respect to French and what Canada can do, I think what is interesting in this study is that there is a pool of French-speaking immigrants across the world who are ready to move to our continent. You will see in the study that the U.S.A., during the same period that we were recruiting, recruited five times more French-speaking immigrants than we did. So the pool is there. We're not the U.S.A., but we're America; we're a continent.

If Canada were to do what Quebec did and be more proactive, I think we would find results there. So it's a question of willingness and commitment and sticking to our constitutional and legislative obligations.

I think that's it for me.

Jack, could you address the point system?

Mr. Jack Jedwab (Executive Director, Association for Canadian Studies): I would respond in more general terms and say the concern being expressed here is in the ratio between the knowledge of the first official language, in this particular case--and the proposed regulation would allow 16 points, as I am sure you are aware--and knowledge of a second official language, creating, if you wish, a very high criterion for knowledge of a second official language, calling for it to be excellent knowledge.

The point being made is that the ratio will not prove to be a strong incentive to the support of linguistic duality or knowledge of both official languages by an independent immigrant, which is something that would be more consistent with the position vis-à-vis supporting official languages, which is one of the objectives of the legislation that have been adopted.

Secondly, the desire for a better balance between first and second language knowledge conversely would be more consistent with that objective. It seems clear in the documentation that was put together to justify the point spread--it sounds a bit like a football game; the sixteen-to-four or four-to-one ratio--was motivated by the notion that because most of Canada outside the axis of Ottawa-Moncton-Quebec operates in one official language, it would be better to validate or recognize that by creating this very wide point spread, which creates more incentive for knowledge of one language.

Those are views or principles that are inconsistent, I think--that is what is being expressed here--with the recognition of two official languages, which is very fundamental to the mandate of the commission and of the federal government in both 1969 and 1998 and beyond.

In terms of the mechanics of creating that better balance, there are many ways to do it. A proposal has been put forth by the commissioner for your consideration, which she and the commission feel is far more consistent with their objectives and the objectives of the legislation on official languages, and would be, in effect, a greater incentive to knowledge of two official languages by an immigrant.

Ms. Dyane Adam: If I may add to what Dr. Jedwab just said, in Canada we have generally invested a lot in the teaching of a second language to increase our pool of bilingual individuals. Right now, after 30 years of official bilingualism, we are finding in Canada, in the young generation around 14 to 19, one in four is bilingual. Overall, 17% to 18% of Canadians are bilingual. We see in the pool we are recruiting right now, 11% of immigrants are bilingual . If we were consistent with our objectives as a nation in terms of the linguistic duality, we all realize that an immigrant who wants to come here, even though one doesn't need to have perfect bilingualism--we don't even have it for ourselves--should be given extra points for that second official language. It should be formally recognized. It is a strong message to send out there.

The Chair: Do you have a follow-up, Paul, or are you fine?

Á (1130)

Mr. Paul Forseth: I would just say I think they make a convincing argument on the principle, but it is a question of looking exactly at the numbers. I don't think maybe the committee has really looked at this section the way the computer program works when you take an applicant through. When you begin to realize how the numbers operate, it may be a point for the committee to look at.

The Chair: We were going to talk about the grid at length on Monday and I would ask you, for the week and a half, to give some thought as to what numbers you would put in those boxes, just to give us some idea.

As a supplementary question, if everybody turns to page 40 of the RIAS, just so I can understand what your recommendation is--and I know you don't have it--presently under the new selection grid it says “high proficiency”--

Mr. Paul Forseth: Yes, but that doesn't make any sense.

The Chair: The RIAS, not the regulations--the impact statement. That's where the grid is and that's where I've been looking.

I'll just stick to the language stuff. On high proficiency, the first language is sixteen, and you get four for your knowledge of the second language. On moderate proficiency, you get eight for the first language and zero for the second language. For basic proficiency--and I don't even know what that means--you get zero and zero. So it's that area you're talking about--the dynamics.

Dyane, from what you're trying to tell us, on the high proficiency, how would your model work? This gets back to where Paul was. Right now it says sixteen and four. Is that too much of a gap on high proficiencies, with sixteen points for the first language and four points for the second language? Would you add a bonus of two to the second language?

Ms. Dyane Adam: There are two proposals in that point system. One is that a bonus of two be given for a candidate's knowledge of their second official language.

The Chair: It should be greater than four, and you're suggesting it should go to six, with a bonus--

Ms. Dyane Adam: Exactly. For an individual--

The Chair: What about moderate proficiency?

Ms. Dyane Adam: If an individual does not have high proficiency in the second language, only moderate, they should receive points. That's what we're proposing.

The Chair: How many points? Right now it's eight for the first language and zero for the second language. Just to get the ratios right, that's what I'm trying--

[Translation]

Ms. Dyane Adam: No points have been awarded.

[English]

Mr. Gérard Finn (Director General, Policy and Communications Branch, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages): We didn't establish it exactly, but there should be some recognition within the grade--

The Chair: So on the principle... I think that's your point.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Yes. Whether you decide to put four or six, it might be a balance of other factors, but there should be a principle there and an objective, and you have to decide what way. But it should not be zero.

The Chair: Okay.

Madeleine... or Steve, I'm sorry. I keep forgetting I have to go Liberal over here. I'm sorry.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I know, I know.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: He does keep forgetting. That's for another day.

I just want to clarify this. First of all, it's quite interesting that you get four points for each of these abilities: speak, listen, read, and write. “Listen” should obviously be changed to “comprehend” because, as we know around here, a lot of people can listen, but they sure don't have a clue what they're listening to. Maybe we'll make that recommendation, as a committee, to change the word “listen” to “comprehend”.

I'm just, like the chair, trying to understand. You're not suggesting the sixteen points in the first official language would get the bonus; it would only be the second. So if they had high proficiency in both official languages, they would declare which would be their first language and get sixteen.

I'm surprised, I have to tell you, you're not a tad more aggressive. It seems to me, if you have high proficiency in both official languages, you should probably get the same points for that high proficiency. Maybe that's something we can discuss when we get down to recommendations.

The Chair: That's bilingual.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Exactly. It's what this country is trying to be about, and we're seeing a drop in the statistics. So if you are truly bilingual, it should be treated equally, in my view.

Á (1135)

Ms. Dyane Adam: You have a good point. Your comments would be more in line with our Official Languages Act and our Constitution on equality of status. In a sense, you're recognizing that in the individual.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Right. I think this committee might be interested in taking your recommendations and adding on to them to that extent, to recognize that.

It does define...and I can't figure out why we have two separate books. They both say parts 1 to 17, but they're different.

The Chair: One is the regulations and one is the statement.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: On page 48 of the actual regulations it defines what we mean by high, moderate, and basic proficiency and no proficiency. It seems to me that if someone can speak a second official language with moderate proficiency, they get zero. Again, I don't think that recognizes the importance this government and this country attach to bilingualism. They should get something. Then, as you say, we should encourage the provinces to provide French-language instruction so that they can boost that proficiency from moderate to high. Frankly, I think we need to look at that. There's a big difference, Mr. Chairman, between basic proficiency and no proficiency. Yet they're putting them together and saying they get nothing. If you have basic proficiency, you have something to build on. You have the ability to learn more.

Madeleine, you'll recall that in the week we spent in Quebec my proficiency improved. It was just you and me. The wine was wonderful. My level of proficiency went from no proficiency up to basic proficiency.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Maybe you could give some thought to that and submit a supplementary letter with some strong recommendations along those lines, which the committee might then be able to put in the form of amendments.

I have a couple of quick questions about the situation in the province of Quebec. Quebec actually has a ministry of immigration. I believe they're the only province that does. In spite of the different agreements--and I don't know this for sure--I don't think the other provinces have actually set up departments the way the Province of Quebec has.

Supposedly, they would aggressively look for French-speaking immigrants. My question is, why can't they attract more of them, and why are they leaving? I can understand that if a unilingual English-speaking immigrant wound up in Quebec City, they might not be that comfortable and they may decide to move. But if they're French speaking, is there some other reason, such as economics or certain aspects of society? What is causing them to leave?

Ms. Dyane Adam: The statistics I mentioned earlier were for English-speaking immigrants. One in four, 25%, were leaving. It's not the French-speaking immigrants.

Á (1140)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We need more than basic.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Another week in Quebec, Madeleine. Things are looking up.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Dyane Adam: I think they have a date.

I think you had a supplementary question linked to why Quebec can't recruit more French-speaking persons.

Mr. Steve Mahoney: Is that a problem? Are they being successful in recruiting more?

Ms. Dyane Adam: Our study, and maybe Jack could add to this, has more or less shown that considering where they were coming from, Quebec has been quite successful in recruiting more French-speaking immigrants .

It's true that if Canada overall were more proactive on both fronts, it would also help Quebec. How we present ourselves to the outside world is often very important. We will attract immigrants based on how we promote ourselves. Your chairman was telling me that some of you will be going overseas to see how we do that. Based on the complaints we've received from citizens or aspiring immigrants, we do have problems adequately promoting the linguistic duality in some of our offices abroad. So I'm counting on you to get that information to the outside.

Jack, do you want to add anything?

Mr. Jack Jedwab: Yes, I might. I would submit that first of all, like the federal government, Quebec's government also has a selection grid. In fact, their selection grid currently offers more of an incentive to knowledge of both official languages than the proposed grid that is being submitted in Bill C-11. But as much as the federal government tries to strike a balance between economic immigrants and knowledge of official languages among immigrants based on the point system, so too does the Government of Quebec attempt to strike that balance between recruiting in its independent category--I'm not talking about refugees right now, but the independent category--and looking as much as possible for economic immigration. In doing so, they are also trying as much as possible to reconcile that with francophone immigrants as far as they'll fit into the various categories in Quebec's selection grid.

By and large, it's no secret that if you're looking at the Francophonie across the globe, very often you're going to encounter parts of the world where the potential candidate may not correspond to the economic criteria that are built into either the federal grid or the Quebec grid. For example, in the United States you have 160,000 or so people who migrated from Haiti. Many of them came in under family class and so forth. They would not necessarily have corresponded to the economic criteria in the selection grid, either that of Quebec or that of the federal government, either the one before or the one currently.

So that's where this balance is being struck. Quebec will go out and be more aggressive vis-à-vis its recruitment. It is recruiting quite aggressively in North Africa, for example. But there's still the need to correspond to the economic criteria and to find that balance between the two. Quebec was able to attract a fair number of investor immigrants from Hong Kong, for example. They wouldn't have corresponded to the French language emphasis in that grid, but still they correspond well to some of the business investor categories, which don't have the same type of selection grid or point system that applies to other immigrants. I think that explains some of the differences you see.

In the United States, it's not that the United States is going out and attracting immigrants from France. It's that they're gravitating naturally to that country for a whole set of reasons, probably economic for the most part.

Can I just make one quick point about the point system again? In working on this, we dealt mostly with the principle. We've tried to establish some principles vis-à-vis the balance in the point system as opposed to getting into the specifics or mechanics of it, which I gather the commissioner will come forth with at some date in the near future.

I did want to say that as it stands, when you look at the point system, it's not just the balance between first and second language; it's the message that the point system is reflecting or is delivering to a potential candidate. The message the point system currently delivers, leaving aside the ratios or balances or numbers, is that there is an incentive in some ways for knowledge of one official language and high proficiency in one language, and a lesser emphasis on the knowledge of the second.

That message for the candidate is not consistent. It seems, at least in this report, that the type of messaging that is being given out abroad, both by the federal government and, for that matter, by the Quebec government... If you look at the messaging the Quebec government is giving, it too, surprisingly for some, is talking about the duality, the presence of two languages, etc., in Montreal, for example. For the candidate, it might be confusing if the point system being put forward is not providing that incentive versus the type of messaging that's being given by immigration officials abroad vis-à-vis conditions here in Canada, and for that matter, by Quebec officials when they too go abroad.

Á (1145)

The Chair: I should point out that you raise a very good issue. The problem is that if you weight language to a total of 20--and I sometimes can't understand how these people do this--and you know English and French equally and you want to give each 16 and 16, that would add up to 32. Well, 32 obviously is much higher than the 20 we want to give in total to the whole weighting of language as part of the 100 total. I think somebody just started to put numbers together, like 16 plus 4 is 20, and then zero, zero, zero. After a while it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Your guidance has been helpful, and so were Jack's comments.

I have to go now to... to you.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Hello, Ms. Adam.

I won't talk about the grid because it's obvious and I entirely agree with Mr. Jedwab that the grid, as it is, sends an absolutely appalling message which underscores the difference between wishes and reality. I believe we definitely have a consensus around this table on that point.

I admit that I find you very courageous in advocating an increase in Francophone immigration outside Quebec. I understand you. However, one thing troubles me. I believe that no one can deny that the farther you get from the Quebec and Ontario border, the greater the assimilation of the Francophone communities gets. We also know that the few Francophone immigrants who settle in the West ultimately choose to identify with Canada's Anglophone community, as Francophone immigrants who go to the United States choose to live in an Anglophone environment.

Quebec is making efforts. I believe we can say it has achieved genuine success. And yet we still need more Francophone immigration to Quebec, and that's very clear. Don't you fear that a certain degree of competition may arise between Quebec's objectives, which are very clear, entirely laudable and consistent with Canada's linguistic duality, and this kind of recruitment that you want to do? In your list of recommendations, you refer to harmonization of information given by the Quebec department and Immigration Canada. I imagine you foresee stumbling blocks. What are they?

Can you first say whether you see any, but perhaps there are none. So I would like you to answer me on that.

Ms. Dyane Adam: I believe there is already a sufficiently large pool of bilingual persons or Francophones in the world to meet the needs of Canada and Quebec, that is to say of Canadian Francophonie. We think it is perfectly clear, and the study shows it, that offices outside Canada which recruit or promote Quebec are not necessarily the same as those of Canada. In other words, one would say that there are different pools from which we will draw our immigrants.

If Canada decides--and I believe it has an obligation to do so--to ensure that its two major linguistic communities have their fair share of immigrants, since that is how we maintain our demographic weight or demographic growth, it has no other choice but to reconsider or enhance both its promotion and recruitment strategies and the places where it recruits, and to work jointly with Quebec.

There will always be immigrants who choose to go to Vancouver for all sorts of reasons. It's warmer there. It may be as simple as that. There is less of a difference in temperature between there and their place of origin. The idea then is to ensure that those people, who have already been uprooted and are arriving in a new country... The fact that there are vibrant Francophone communities in various locations across Canada can only promote and facilitate their process of integration.

They will necessarily have to learn English, if they don't know it already, but they, like us, a minority living outside Quebec, will nevertheless have these French-speaking areas enabling us to grow, develop and preserve our linguistic and cultural heritage, while taking part in the language of the majority and in Canadian life. So I don't see that as mutually exclusive, and I even think it is important that...

From what I see, based on our research and other research, there are not so many differences or disparities between Canada's general policies and those of Quebec. Quebec very much respects cultural diversity. Montreal is still the most multilingual city in Canada and the most bilingual city, which nevertheless sends a message about our policies which apply to Canada as a whole.

Á (1150)

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: More than 40 percent of immigrants will find themselves with zero to two. When they arrive, they know neither English nor French. Of course, we're talking about statistics and objectives. In that context, what percentage can you say is represented by these truly allophone immigrants who should be encouraged to turn toward Canada's minority language, which is French?

I'm not a statistician and I don't work with him, but I'm convinced that the vast majority will spontaneously turn toward English, which I can understand very readily: they're arriving in an Anglophone hemisphere. Furthermore, we know, particularly for refugees who have arrived in Quebec, for example, who speak neither English nor French, that, after six months, they were able to carry on an utterly surprising conversation in French. These were people who knew nothing in either French or English.

So, in this orientation, do you anticipate making Canada's duality a living and dynamic reality? Do you foresee suggesting that efforts should be made for some of these immigrants to be encouraged to go to places where they have more opportunity to fit into the Francophone culture?

Madame Dyane Adam: The challenge is obviously much greater in a minority context. If we wanted to start from a person who has no knowledge of either language, there would be a much greater chance that the pool already consists of immigrants who understand or who have already acquired a certain knowledge of French. That is why direct recruitment efforts must be made.

As for the immigrants arriving now, I can tell you that I learned some things in some meetings that I had, in Western Canada, for example. For an immigrant arriving in some of those majority Anglophone communities, for example, the reception centres told me that, under the current policy in that province, the existing programs paid for English language instruction, but not French language instruction.

So, right away, there, measures were taken or decisions were made as a result of which all arriving immigrants will assume they must tend toward English. Not only that, but they are deprived of the opportunity to learn the second official language, whereas that perhaps should be systematically offered to all our immigrants, regardless of where they are.

So, some things really must be adjusted, be it the act, regulations, policies or integration measures. It has to be coherent.

Á (1155)

The Chair: Thank you. Merci.

Yvon.

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Since I am the member for the majority, I hope that you will give me as much time as you gave...

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Stop being jealous!

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau: We are dealing with a major contribution, and we have nearly come to the final moments of our series of hearings on the proposed regulations, but we have had the opportunity to consider your concerns and questions a little in advance. It's a major contribution, Mr. Chairman, which we have to study today.

The first thing I am pleased about is that you emphasized that the impact study which has been made public does not deal with this question. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that this is a message which should be clearly noted and reproduced in our report. The impact study is substantial. It is well done on the whole. It reports on all the consultations, but from the standpoint of the subject of today's debate, there have been no consultations. We can see this at page 61 of the French summary. So that's an important point. When it comes to the next phase of the regulations and to other stages, Immigration Canada should get used to conducting an impact study from the language standpoint, as it were, from the standpoint of the linguistic communities.

Second, I would say that we will have to refine the question of linguistic criteria--we are going to come back to this, as we said a moment ago--from two standpoints: the relationship between knowledge of English and French, that is the way the various levels are weighted, and the weight of the linguistic factor in the grid as a whole. Some people have told us that 20 points out of 100 is too much. It could be reduced because a language can be learned. If immigrants do not know English or French well, they can get by after a few months and they can make a good contribution to Canada.

Others say that even 20 is scarcely enough and that it would be better to increase that a little because mastery of a language or of both languages ensures better integration. There are two points of view and, to tell the truth, there is no absolute truth in these matters; it all depends on the type of job the person will hold, the type of situation and so on. So its from two standpoints.

However, Mr. Chairman, the problem is much more comprehensive than that, and the commissioner emphasized this point. She would like to see a more integrated approach because, in fact, increasing or reducing the relationship between the two languages or increasing the weight of the linguistic factor in the grid as a whole, or reducing it, is ultimately a matter of fine tuning, and needs can fluctuate over the years. We may need to do some catching up; so we increase this a bit and we reduce that a bit.

We are dealing with a broader question. The entire issue of immigration policy is in question. We are concerned about the total number desired and the number by language category desired in Canada. It's on that question that our Minister must be informed by the testimony of people such as the Commissioner of Official Languages.

We may not have all the time or all the tools to make specific recommendations in this regard, but this opportunity should perhaps be taken, at the start or end of our brief, to tell the Minister that we would like to have the opportunity to come back and reflect in public on this question of immigration policy, on the numbers and the percentages between communities. More specifically, that's where it happens when you look at the disparity between the numbers of immigrants who know French and those who do not know French.

The promotion policy could then stem from that. How do we orient our promotion outside Canada? What is within the federal jurisdiction? What is within Quebec's jurisdiction? We understand that Quebec is doing a good job, but, at best, that brings more immigrants into Quebec. Here we're talking about Francophones in the country: in Quebec and outside Quebec.

So the federal government has a responsibility in this area. It must know what it wants. The selection for Quebec is being done by Quebec. For the rest, the federal tool, the federal grid, must promote a catching up to a certain degree.

Â (1200)

I believe that that's what we're talking about with respect to the French language. As regards integration, my first question will be to ask our guests to tell us what recommendations they would make regarding the tools the federal government should have to ensure that more Francophones settle outside Quebec and to ensure as well that they stay in those regions and can live there in French. What tools should we develop for that?

So, Mr. Chairman, we would do well to come back and tell the Minister that we are available and that we want to return to this question and address it more fully and have the opportunity to hear a series of witnesses on this matter, and to propose some measures to him which, I believe, could address this problem in a more fundamental way than the system of points on a grid which we are discussing today. We are going to deal with the grid, but this is the last minute for all that, and the problems put before us are structural, longitudinal problems. Years and years of policies are necessary to have some effect on the percentages in these areas.

My second question is that: When we talk about Francophones and we talk about Tunisians, do you consider them Francophone immigrants or Arabophones who know French? When you recruit a Lebanese immigrant, what do you call him in your statistics? A Francophone or an Arabophone? Some Lebanese know no French and were educated in English. Do you call Haitians Francophones in the statistics you're telling us about? It's not clear; it depends on the level of education. Are Senegalese and Malians Francophones? Everything depends on the level.

It's a fairly complex question when you just go by the official statistics.

Madame Dyane Adam: There are two questions, one concerning the settlement and integration process and the other perhaps the question of definitions. I will leave it to Jack to answer the second question since it concerns statistics. As you will see, our definition of Francophone is quite broad and inclusive.

Mr. Jack Jedwab: With regard to persons whose mother tongue is neither English nor French, who are called Allophones in Quebec, in the data presented in the report, we have assessed their ability to speak French as opposed to their ability to speak English. That's the measure that's important for us, that is to say the first language that an immigrant spoke based on the data available at Statistics Canada. Some Lebanese indeed had their first contact with French, others with English. There is no homogeneity, but we did not approach the question by ethnic group.

Instead, we looked at the first official language that an immigrant spoke, English or French, outside Quebec and in Quebec. We looked at the mother tongue, the language spoken at home. We also somewhat traced the development of the maintenance of the language of the immigrant who, on his first contact, spoke French outside Quebec. We didn't really adopt this way of making definitions. I believe what is important for people from Eastern Canada who wish to have Francophone immigrants is first the immigrant's ability to speak French.

There are various levels. There are people who only speak French and people who speak English and French. That would also be an asset with respect to the committee's objective, that is to say that people have that ability to speak English and French.

Allow me to make a brief aside. Without discussing the number of immigrants who speak French or Francophones who are there, I would say that a Francophone community outside Quebec brings a certain vitality to a community. Even if there are approximately 100 immigrants--I don't want to go into the figures--that gives an established community a certain degree of vitality. It's a major contribution to that community. The arrival of immigrants brings with it a dimension that goes beyond the figures that are presented for a particular community.

Â (1205)

Madame Dyane Adam: The smaller it is, the more it will benefit from that contribution, of course.

To answer your question regarding settlement, I will say that you have perfectly grasped the message I'm trying to emphasize. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration must absolutely adopt an integrated approach, and that starts at the top. Everything it does after that, whether it's developing the rating system or developing the guide and future policies, must be based on that principle of respect for both official languages and the principle of their promotion. It's not just a question of having numbers and workers in Canada. We are in the process of recruiting citizens, not workers. If we begin to change that, we will see very different proposals from these ones coming out of the department.

I would like to answer your question, Mr. Charbonneau, with an example which, I feel, illustrates the potential of what could happen elsewhere, in other minority communities. Manitoba has shown what can occur when there is harmonization between objectives of a provincial government which has decided to recruit and the needs of its two official language communities.

With respect to the minority, the communities, associations and others were asked to take part in the writing, and to contribute to the promotion, of material, to accompany them on missions outside Canada to meet immigrants. The result, of course, is that this community is waiting for these families that are going to arrive. They have come to a second experiment. People are taking part in all stages of the process. At that point, these people become their immigrants, people who are already part of their community before even arriving in the country. They are much more aware of the needs of that community and of the necessity of supporting it and thus of accompanying it through the process. And God knows there are things to be done when you arrive in a new country. People have all kinds of needs: health needs, needs for social services, education and so on.

These are the types of things that must occur: a kind of new vitality must be breathed into our communities. That is being done and it has been successful.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Diane, Gérard, and Jack, first for your presentation as it relates to regulations, but more importantly for the study and the discussion that we must and will continue to have with regard to recruitment and promotion. As you said, it's an integrated approach, especially on the resettlement issue.

I'll end off with something unique that you started to talk about at the end. Some of our witnesses, especially those from Manitoba, indicated that under the adaptability model or section of the grid that we will probably be talking about on Monday, community support is very important. Now the community wants to start doing some positive measures as to how much more they can do in terms of recruiting and helping out.

As you pointed out, Dyane, there are some very dynamic things happening, especially in Quebec, as they do their recruitment, but also other... We're going to be talking about the provincial nominee agreements. We're talking about recruitment and settlement and perhaps how to build a bigger pie. At the end of the day, some people have indicated--Yvon might have said it--that perhaps our bar of 225,000 or 250,000, while it might have served us well in the past, should be raised to at least 300,000, as a party position. There are some demographic imperatives across the country that we must continue to meet regardless of language, but obviously we must be very supportive and respectful of the duality as well as the multicultural aspects.

Thank you very much for your input.

Ms. Dyane Adam: Merci. Thank you very much.

The Chair: The committee is adjourned until Monday, March 11, at 3:30 p.m.