Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 22 - Evidence - March 9, 2011
OTTAWA, Wednesday, March 9, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:19 p.m. to study Bill C- 35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
Today, we continue with our consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
For this second meeting, we have the minister, the Honourable Jason Kenney. We also have members of the staff at Citizenship and Immigration Canada with us: Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy; Mark Davidson, Acting Director General, Immigration Branch; and Elaine Menard, Legal Counsel.
Over to you, Minister.
[Translation]
The Hon. Jason Kenney, P.C., M.P., Minister, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. To begin, I would like to thank the committee for inviting me here to speak to you about Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
With Bill C-35, we are targeting undeclared "ghost" consultants, as well as other unscrupulous third-party intermediaries who are engaging in unacceptable and often fraudulent activity. Immigration fraud and other wrongdoing threaten the integrity of Canada's immigration system and cost us all.
[English]
Some fraud happens here in Canada, but as we all know, much happens overseas in our primary immigrant-source countries. The international scope of the problem is why, when I visited China, India and the Philippines in September, I asked governments in those countries, our top immigration-source countries, to help us crack down on immigration fraud. I should add that I did the same in my recent visit to Pakistan in meeting with their interior minister, Rehman Malik, last Friday.
Fraudulent activity can range from people submitting fake documents to get a visitor's visa, all the way to people paying up to $100,000 to someone in order to get, for example, a fake spousal sponsorship application put through our system. Unscrupulous third-party intermediaries can charge exorbitant fees to applicants and promise services that are never delivered.
Let us be clear: Immigration fraud is a crime. It is a crime that raises security concern, wastes tax dollars, adds to the processing time for legitimate applicants, and is unfair to those who do follow the rules.
[Translation]
The government is committed to protecting vulnerable would-be immigrants and the integrity of Canada's immigration system. But while the current legislation regulates the activities of immigration representatives from the point of the submission of an application or the commencement of a proceeding, it does not regulate their involvement before a proceeding has begun or in the pre-application period. This is where most of the fraudulent activities of ghost consultants actually take place.
[English]
Bill C-35 would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act so that only authorized representatives could provide representation or advice, for a fee, at any stage of a proceeding or application, for a visa to Canada. This includes services provided before an application is submitted to us and before a proceeding begins, for example, at the IRB, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, thus closing a loophole in the current framework. This would therefore make it an offence for anyone other than a lawyer, a Quebec notary, a paralegal regulated by a law society, or an authorized immigration consultant to conduct business, even before a proceeding has begun or in the pre- application period.
The bill would also provide the minister with the authority, by regulation, to designate a governing body for immigration consultants and authorize the Governor-in-Council to make regulations to enhance the government's oversight of this body. This would be done by requiring that the body governing immigration consultants provides information to the minister to assist in evaluating whether it is governing its members in accordance with the public interest.
In addition, the bill provides the authority to make regulations to facilitate the disclosure of information concerning the alleged unethical or unprofessional conduct of immigration representatives to the responsible governing body. This will allow the governing body to pursue appropriate disciplinary action where necessary.
[Translation]
Since its introduction last June, Bill C-35 has been positively received by stakeholders, the media and Canadians, all of whom believed change was long overdue. I should add that the bill received unanimous support from all four parties in the House of Commons, once the following amendments were incorporated.
[English]
In the spirit of cooperation and compromise, a number of amendments were incorporated into the bill by the House of Commons standing committee and they were supported by the government. These include amendments to capture both direct and indirect representation and advice; to respect Quebec's jurisdiction while maintaining federal authority over the regulation of immigration consultants — and I should say that we consulted closely with the Government of Quebec in this regard; to specify the minister's authority to revoke the designation of a body through regulations; to increase maximum fines for the offence of providing unauthorized immigration advice or representation from $50,000, which we proposed originally, up to $100,000, and for summary convictions, the penalty was increased from $10,000 to $20,000. Also, the bill was amended to increase the length of time to institute a proceeding by way of a summary conviction to ten years for certain offences, as opposed to the initially proposed period of five years. Finally, the bill was amended to have all of the bill come into force on the same day.
In addition, government amendments to the bill were introduced at the committee stage to recognize paralegals regulated by a provincial law society as being authorized immigration representatives, and to provide broader authority to government to require information from the designated governing body, which is a key power.
As you will recall, Mr. Chair, at the time that Bill C-35 was introduced, I announced that I would take immediate steps to address a lack of public confidence in the regulation of immigration consultants under the current regime. In the days that followed, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, CIC, launched a transparent public selection process to identify a governing body for recognition as the regulator of immigration consultants, in parallel to the legislative process.
A call for submissions from interested candidates was published in the Canada Gazette on August 28, 2010, and interested parties were given until December 29 to deliver their submissions. I can report today that the call for submissions process is now complete and that an expert selection committee, comprised of two officials from my ministry, one from the Canada Border Services Agency, and four external experts, has met to review the several proposals we received.
The expert committee is providing a recommendation as to which organizations, if any, have demonstrated the necessary competence, integrity, accountability, good governance and viability to effectively regulate the profession so as to preserve the integrity of the immigration system.
Mr. Chair, it is clear that many prospective immigrants and new Canadians are falling victim to unethical immigration consultants and others that I pejoratively refer to as bottom-feeders in the immigration industry, and there are a lot of them. These unscrupulous operators take advantage of would-be immigrants who are frequently charged significant fees, often ranging in the tens of thousands of dollars, and who are often promised high-paying jobs or fast-tracked or guaranteed visas.
On Friday, when I met with the interior minister for Pakistan responsible for law enforcement, he said, "Mr. Kenney, when I open the newspapers, I see all of these ads for immigration agents guaranteeing people visas to go to Canada. Are these people operating with your authority?" I had to inform him that, typically, no, they are not licensed consultants; they are outside the Canadian law, and we would appreciate it if Pakistan would crack down on them.
Driving around in the Punjab region of northern India, I have seen billboards with rip-offs of the Canadian government wordmark promising guaranteed Canadian visas if you call this number. Typically, what happens if you call that number is that you go to someone's office and they say, "I can get you the visa," or they might say, "I know someone in the consulate, and you have to pay me 5 lakh, or $10,000 or $15,000." Often a vulnerable young student or a farmer will liquidate their life savings or part of their life savings to make a payment to the consultant, who then will often submit a sloppy application, filled with misrepresentations and often supported by fraudulent counterfeit documents.
That is then opened up by our officials at our consulate or our high commission. We become quite expert at spotting the fraudulent documents. When we see the fake bank transcript, the fake marriage or death certificate, the fake academic transcript or flight itinerary, we stamp "reject" on it and send back a reject letter, and the person is often out their entire life savings. This is a pernicious industry that we must combat. It is difficult for us to do overseas, but it also happens in varying degrees here in Canada, which is why this bill is so important.
If passed by honourable senators, this bill will crack down on unscrupulous third-party intermediaries who undermine the integrity of our immigration system by exploiting prospective immigrants or encouraging them to cheat the system.
As I said to Minister Rehman Malik in Pakistan, if they could help us in enforcing the Pakistani law against unauthorized immigration consultants, for example, it would mean fewer fraudulent applications and counterfeit documents coming into our immigration office in Islamabad. The same applies to offices all around the world. That means faster processing time for the bona fide, legitimate applicants and an overall higher acceptance rate in due course.
For all of the hundreds of thousands of people who want to make honest, legitimate applications, they have an interest in seeing us do what we can to fix the problem. We believe Bill C-35 responds to that.
With respect to the selection of a governing body, it is true that under the current regime there is a recognized governing body for immigration intermediaries, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, CSIC, and it was recognized in 2004 or 2005. I hope the committee is aware that a number of concerns have been expressed about the performance of that body, most particularly by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, which detailed a number of concerns about accountability and disciplinary measures and financial questions.
It was that which prompted me, as minister, to open up this selection process. We have done so in an objective way without prejudice to any of the applicants. In due course, I will be making an announcement about the governing body that is selected. We have done that in order to respond to concerns that have existed for some time about the current governing body.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments the committee may have.
[English]
The Chair: Let me start with a few questions, and then I will go to my colleagues.
The regulatory body that you are about to appoint, when will you be doing that? How soon would that be?
Mr. Kenney: In the fairly near future.
The Chair: I used to use that phrase all the time.
Mr. Kenney: I normally, if anything, say far more than I should about many things, and I give my department heart palpitations for how transparent I am about policy developments and whatnot.
This is a sensitive matter for potential legal reasons, so the less I say the better. All I can say is that we received several applications. We put in place an expert panel that has provided advice to me. In due course, I will make a recommendation to the Governor-in-Council and, in the fairly near future, I will be making an announcement based on that recommendation.
The Chair: The purpose of the bill is to deal with unscrupulous or fraudulent operations, et cetera, and I think we all agree with that.
You talked about people who have become victimized, victims of unethical immigrant consultants. What happens to the victims? Maybe some of the victims contribute to their own problem, and maybe they are part of the problem. In some cases, they may engage one of these consultants, not knowing that they are dealing with somebody of that ilk.
If they subsequently get onto the right track, will this be held against them, the fact they were tied to an illegal operator, if they are truly victims?
Mr. Kenney: It depends on the facts of each individual case. Let us be honest, in many cases people willingly engage someone who offers to cut corners for them. If an applicant for a visa or immigration to Canada signs a form that has been prepared by their consultant, and it includes misrepresentations or fraudulent documents, that person must take responsibility. That usually results in what is called an A40 report being written, meaning that they are ineligible to apply for a visa for a period of two years.
Some would say that is not a strong enough sanction. I think that, in considering whether to apply that sanction to the applicant, our officers do look at the context. In some cases, if they see someone has clearly been led down the garden path and that the client acted in good faith, I think they take that into consideration before applying that section.
The Chair: Each on its own merits.
You talked about your discussions in Pakistan and other places. You recognize that many of these fraudulent activities start overseas somewhere. Do you have any specific mechanisms in place, any agreements with these countries, other than telling them the things that will lead to that?
Mr. Kenney: What we are seeking to do is to make stronger regulation and enforcement of the immigration industry in the source countries a priority in our bilateral relations.
To give you some examples, in September of last year I met with the minister for non-resident Indians in New Delhi, as well as the minister of public safety and the minister of foreign affairs, and obtained from them an undertaking that the Indian cabinet would recommend to the Lok Sabha a bill to substantially improve the regulation of immigration agents and intermediaries in the current session of the Indian Lok Sabha Parliament. That has not yet happened for domestic political reasons, but we have been lobbying them for some time to move forward on this, and we have a clear commitment, I think, that they will do so at the earliest opportunity. That is good news.
Second, law enforcement in India, as here in Canada, is typically the responsibility of the state of regional governments. I visited Chandigarh, and I met the chief minister of the Punjab region, the largest source region for immigrants to Canada in India. Chief Minister Badal Singh agreed to appoint a special representative of the Punjab state police to work directly with our consulate in pursuing charges and prosecutions against people who are clearly, in our view, guilty of facilitating immigration fraud.
I have to be honest with you, when I met with Minister Singh 18 months previous, he made a similar undertaking and not much happened. This time, I said that we are prepared to present to him an absolutely comprehensive package of evidence on one particular consultant who has taken, we believe, at least $400,000 from applicants for student visas, submitting manifestly false, fraudulent, bogus applications. The students held protests outside this guy's office in Jalandhar in Punjab. I told him that we have the evidence and will give it to him. He said to give it to him, and that he would ensure the state police follow up on it. Fortunately, that man was arrested about two weeks later. There has been a significant increase in enforcement activity.
In Beijing, I met with the minister of public security and raised the same issue, particularly with respect to marriage fraud being facilitated by apparently criminal networks in the Guangzhou and Fujian regions, resulting in thousands of fraudulent marriage applications being submitted to our Hong Kong office. I said we need cooperation with the Chinese police to follow up on these files. They agreed to have a formal, ongoing interface between the relevant police agencies and our CIC office in Beijing.
I think we are making progress, but it is something we will have to stay on top of permanently. These appear to be victimless crimes, and they are certainly non-violent crimes. They are paper crimes, so often they are not an enforcement priority. It will take concerted, continued diplomatic pressure for us to maintain this as a priority issue with some of those countries.
The Chair: Two of the organizations that appeared at our first meeting last week, the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, both indicated a concern about paralegals. In the current circumstance, apparently it is only Ontario that this applies to, as they come under The Law Society of Upper Canada, but ultimately other provinces could become involved. While they had great respect for the law societies, they were not sure about the training and qualifications of paralegals to deal with immigration services. In fact, in the words of one of them, they believed that allowing paralegals to be recognized as authorized representatives would impugn the Canadian immigration system.
They are not trained to offer immigrant consulting services. Law societies do not impose strict standards of practice for immigration law.
What kind of education, training, qualifications, or certification might need to happen?
Mr. Kenney: The amendment added to the bill proposes to recognize, as immigration practitioners, paralegals who are recognized by their respective provincial law societies or l'Association professionnelle des notaires du Québec, because they have recognition from their provincial law society.
That recognizes a significant standard of expertise and training. I am sure the law societies are not licensing untrained paralegals. Essentially, we are putting our confidence in the training regime and the licensing process established by the provincial law societies.
Here is the reason why the House committee adopted this amendment with respect to paralegals. Frequently, law firms will act on behalf of our ministry's applicants for immigration or visas. A common practice in a law firm would be for a partner to delegate either all or part of the work to a paralegal.
Quite frankly, a lot of the immigration work is pretty rote. It is just filling out forms and understanding the process. It is not as complex as court appearances, et cetera.
If a paralegal phones CIC to check on the status of a file, we want to have a legal facility so that person can operate as a licenced immigration intermediary. Is that fair to say?
Les Linklater, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: I will add to what the minister has said.
The Chair: It is not that the paralegals are not properly trained and governed. It is how much they know about the immigration area. That was the concern being expressed.
Mark Davidson, Acting Director General, Immigration Branch, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: As the minister correctly pointed out, we are only dealing with paralegals regulated by the Law Society of Ontario.
In Ontario, there is a requirement by the Law Society of Upper Canada that individuals may only practice in a field for which they have expertise. That is how the law societies ensure that individuals do not practice in an area for which they do not have expertise.
Mr. Kenney: I will defer to my officials here.
The Chair: I will move on to my colleagues, who are anxious to get their questions in.
Senator Cordy: Thank you for appearing before our committee. My colleagues around the table will tell you that it is extremely important that ministers come to speak to bills. We get to speak to the Leader of the Government in the Senate, but this is the only time we get to speak to you. It is nice to have you here in person to discuss Bill C-35.
Regardless of political party, everyone agrees that we want to ensure that consultants are working in the best interests of those who wish to immigrate to Canada and are following the rules.
Minister, since June, there have been a number of troubling events. Most recently, your Parliament Hill office was being used to solicit funds to target ethnic ridings because, in your words, they live where the Conservative Party needs to win.
I find that troubling. The same people who look to your office and to you, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to assist them with difficult immigration issues involving members of their families are now learning that they are perceived as targets for political reasons.
Do you not think, minister, that this impression or perception makes it more difficult for you to fulfill your responsibilities as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism now that your parliamentary office is being used to target these people on behalf of the Conservative Party?
Senator Eaton: What does this have to do with the bill?
Senator Cordy: I am getting to the bill.
The Chair: Order, please. We should stick to the bill.
Senator Cordy: We need to remember that many of these immigrants are arriving from countries like China where there is no distinction made between a party and the government, and where there are no free elections. We are lucky that we live in such a great country.
In these countries, party and government are all one and the same. When we blur this distinction in Canada, in the very office of the minister responsible for immigration, what kind of message —
Senator Eaton: Where is the question dealing with Bill C-35?
The Chair: I take it she is coming to that. Please get to the bill.
Senator Cordy: What kind of message are we sending to the immigrants and to the so-called crooked consultants about the nature of our system of government?
We have heard that the government now wishes to be referred to as the "Harper Government" and not the "Government of Canada."
Senator Eaton: This has nothing to do with this committee.
The Chair: Senator Cordy, could you get to Bill C-35, please? Order, please. One chair is all we need.
Senator Cordy: I have no doubt that the minister can handle this.
How do we convey that we are looking at protecting our immigrants from the crooked consultants when there is the blur?
Mr. Kenney: Being from the other place, I have no problem answering political questions.
Senator Cordy: I knew you would not, minister.
Mr. Kenney: I did not realize that politics broke out in the Senate. Thank you, Senator Cordy.
If I could, Mr. Chair, I want to respect your conventions here so I will try to be brief in my response.
You have ascribed words to me that I have never uttered or written about regarding the winning of ridings and so on. I think those comments were drawn from a presentation deck produced as part of a Conservative Party advertising campaign. I do not think it is accurate to attribute those words to me.
I make no apology for the fact that the Conservative Party is deliberately reaching out to new Canadians. We believe, as I hope all parties do, that we need to be responsive to the aspirations, values and priorities of new Canadians.
The Conservative Party has been transparent about that.
The project to which the senator refers is part of a Conservative Party effort to communicate its values to new Canadians. Advertising is a legitimate and normal democratic function that all parties engage in.
When I was heading out of the country last Thursday for an overseas emergency, I asked a member of my office to ensure that my caucus colleagues received a presentation that had been discussed at a caucus meeting. I would normally have sent it myself. I was unable to because of the travel emergency. We have procedures in my office to ensure that partisan fundraising is transmitted on party letterhead or personal letterhead, and those procedures were not followed in this instance. As soon as this came to light, my assistant offered his resignation, which I accepted. I should mention he is a bright, talented young man who regrets this unfortunate error.
As soon as I learned something inappropriate had been done in terms of parliamentary letterhead, my office took appropriate action.
The broader point to Senator Cordy's question is that we live in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. In addition to being the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I am still a member of a political party, like you all are. It is a normal function of my role in the Westminster system to support my political party. I make no apologies for that whatsoever.
I would say, however, that in my extensive work across the country to reach out to new Canadians, I would estimate that 85 per cent or 90 per cent of my time is focused on government business as opposed to strictly partisan business.
For example, on Sunday, I participated in eight events with cultural communities in the Greater Toronto area, seven of which were of an exclusively official nature, public, transparent and non-partisan. One was a Conservative Party event. That is the typical balance of how I allocate my time, and I do not think that is unreasonable.
The Chair: Before going on to the next speaker, let us try to get the questioning on Bill C-35. There is always latitude in terms of preamble, and everyone takes that latitude, but let us try to keep the discussion around Bill C-35.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, minister, for being here. The bill itself, I think, is a good bill and one that we can support. I will take a different tact than my colleague, Senator Cordy, although it is tempting to go along that route. This was not an assistant who was new on the Hill; he was not a rookie, so he should have known better.
You mentioned that the unscrupulous third-party intermediaries can charge exorbitant fees, et cetera. You say that during the pre-application is when most of the fraudulent activities of ghost consultants actually take place, and this includes services provided before the application is submitted.
I do not disagree with any of that, but I am a little confused. In the past two weeks — I say "two weeks," but I may be stretching it; it may have been less than that — your department has bombarded Canadian television with advertisements directed at bad immigration consultants. I have no problem with that. I just have a little problem with the fact that we are advertising here in Ottawa, or in Halifax, where I watch most of my television, or in Toronto, et cetera, where most of these consultants are not present. Most of these consultants are exactly where you said they were, where you said you saw billboards as you drove along the streets of India and Pakistan. I know that exists and I do not doubt that. However, it seems to me that the advertising we are using here in Canada seems to be more self-serving than serving the essence of what the bill is trying to do. Perhaps you could comment on that.
Mr. Kenney: Just a quick rebuttal on the first point. The assistant in question had only worked for me here for six weeks, but he came to me as a bright, highly paid corporate lawyer from New York, and he ought to have known better.
In any event, in terms of the advertising campaign, this is in response to one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, the report on consultants, which said we had to have better public information campaigns to make people aware — sort of caveat emptor — about the risks of using unscrupulous or unregistered immigration consultants. That is really what the campaign is designed to address.
First, there are ghost consultants operating in Canada. For example, the Toronto Star has done at least two exposés on unscrupulous, both licensed and unlicensed, immigration consultants, openly encouraging people to file fraudulent asylum applications and the like. It is hard for us to put a number on it, but the senator could open up one of many dozens of ethnic-language newspapers in Canada and see pages of ads of unlicensed immigration consultants offering services in Canada. There is an issue here that we need to address domestically. That is the first point.
Second, often when people overseas are applying for visas or immigration to Canada, they have relatives or friends in Canada with whom they consult. We believe that by raising the awareness of the risk of using an unscrupulous consultant with Canadians, that message will transmit back to source countries in many cases.
Third, the senator will be pleased to learn that we will shortly be launching an overseas dimension to our consultants' advertising campaign. I would be happy to provide you with details in writing, but it will be focused on our primary immigration-source countries on websites with high traffic of potential immigrants to Canada and whatnot.
We are doing what we can overseas, within reason. Can you imagine if we did a big TV buy in India, with a TV market of 1.5 million people? We cannot do anything that expansive, but we will be doing things in a narrowcast way to try to reach as many prospective visa applicants overseas as we can.
Senator Mercer: Thank you, minister. You skipped the part where I thought the ads, while good ads, seem to be more self-serving. I have lived in Canada's largest city and I have worked with people in various ethnic groups that I am not a member of. I know that there are people in our country who are fraudulent, although I think we have acknowledged that the biggest problems are elsewhere.
You went on to say in your presentation that the amendments in the house give the minister authority to revoke the designation of a body through regulations. I am always concerned when I see the phrase "through regulations" and no one explains to us where the regulations are, how the regulations are developed, who is consulted before the regulations are put in place, and how the regulations will be reviewed. What seems good when you come in with the regulations and what actually ends up being good after you administer them for a number of years may be two different things.
Mr. Kenney: I know that is always a concern of Parliament, to ensure that statutory authority to create regulations is limited. The reason for this provision is that under the current statute, under the current regime, we cannot require that the governing body provide us with any information. We recognize them and then just trust that everything they do will be on the up and up. The concern has been raised that that has not always been the case.
We did not think it would be appropriate to specify in the statute all the different items the organization might be required to submit from time to time. I will give you an example.
Let us say that, at some point 10 years down the road, we find the governing body is having financial issues in a particular area that is not covered by the regulations. Rather than going back to Parliament to get an amendment to the statute to seek to enumerate the requirement to furnish that information, it would be faster and more flexible to amend the regulations.
Senator Merchant: I will return to the criteria that you use to find the governing body. Maybe you have said some of these things, but please go over them for us again.
During the process of selecting organizations to be part of the governing body, what criteria were used to determine suitability? How were these criteria determined, and by whom? Could you then tell us the type of applications you have been receiving thus far? Is the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants still being considered to take part in this new governing body?
Mr. Kenney: In answer to your first question, the criteria for selection were outlined in a public notice that I published in the Canada Gazette in August last year. That notice outlines competence, integrity, accountability, viability and good governance. It also indicates what the evaluative process would be for us to assess those criteria in the applications that we received.
There are five pages. I will not bore you with the details, but those are the key factors that we are looking at in the submissions.
We have received four submissions. I am sure it is not a problem if I confirm that the current regulatory body, CSIC, has submitted one of those submissions to be designated as the regulatory body, together with three other submissions that we have received. All of those have been assessed by the expert panel, and that expert panel has made its recommendation to me and we are moving forward in that process.
Senator Merchant: You may be able to tell us with the other three, the type of submissions that you are getting, the type of people interested in being part of this body?
Mr. Kenney: I want to add something to my last answer, which is that notwithstanding the fact that concerns had been raised about the performance of CSIC, most notably by the standing committee in the House of Commons, we have always indicated that we will receive and consider submissions from CSIC. We will consider it objectively and fairly on its merits, without prejudice. I want to be clear on that point.
In terms of the other submissions, at this point it would be inappropriate for me to comment publicly on their quality, except to say we did receive a range in quality. There is a range in the submissions in terms of their quality and responsiveness to these criteria; that has been assessed very carefully by the expert panel.
Senator Merchant: I know the purpose of the bill is a good one, but I am wondering how effective it can be because, as some other people said, most of these unscrupulous characters live outside our borders. This law will not apply to them.
People will just go on cheating, frankly, because I do not know what we can do to stop people in other countries, despite our best intentions. Whether this bill will make any difference, I do not know.
I would like to know whether there are other countries that have tried to control these unscrupulous persons and have had some measure of success. I think in Europe, and even the U.S., people have just thrown their hands up. The immigration file is a complex one. It would be better controlling people within our own borders, but most of the activity is outside Canada.
Mr. Kenney: I do not disagree with your assessment. Let me put it this way: It is correct to say that we will never eliminate the facilitation of immigration fraud by agents and intermediaries. It will always be there, and it will be particularly challenging for those who operate overseas.
Having said that, people who have spent a lot of time focusing on this issue, for example my NDP critic, Olivia Chow, in the House of Commons, believes that this legislation will have a meaningful effect on how the industry operates, at least in Canada. There are many unscrupulous people — what we call ghost consultants — in Canada who will now fall under the scope of the legislation.
One of the frustrating things for the legitimate consultants right now is that they pay their dues, they mind their Ps and Qs, and most of them operate ethically. Then they open the newspapers and see dozens of ads for people who are not registered offering services, do not pay their dues and are cutting corners. It creates an uneven playing field, which is why the legitimate, bona fide consultants in Canada are pleased that we will be pushing back the coverage to include all of the activity now being done by ghost consultants. That is salutary and positive.
In terms of the overseas piece, there are Canadian immigration consultants in good standing who operate overseas or set up offices overseas, and they are licensed to work with our offices on behalf of their clients.
In terms of international precedents, I will turn to Mr. Linklater.
Mr. Linklater: There are a couple of examples that I could point to. In Australia, for example, they have used a model whereby the independent consulting industry is regulated heavily by the Australian government. The Commonwealth government takes a hand-on role in terms of the overall regulation of the profession. They have looked two times, I believe, at whether the profession was mature enough to move more toward the Canadian model of an independent body. The conclusion has been, no, the time is not quite right.
In the United States, only licensed members of a state bar can practice, although some states are looking at broadening their approach. I believe New York State, under the previous governor, was looking at some potential changes in that regard. At this point, however, it is strictly lawyers who are allowed to represent clients in the American system.
The Chair: Let us move on. Good answers and good questions.
Senator Eaton: Thank you, minister. Have you had support from within the various immigrant communities in Canada for this bill?
Mr. Kenney: Yes, very much so. The bill, as I mentioned, responds in part to the recommendations of the standing committee in the House of Commons in June of 2008, but it also responds to widespread demands for reform by new Canadians, because they know about people who get exploited all the time by crooked immigration consultants.
We have a long list of ethnocultural organizations that have endorsed Bill C-35. It has been broadly endorsed because so many newcomers know people who have been victimized. Often, as I have said, it is quite grave. We are not talking about small amounts of money here. In India, I understand that people are often paying CAN$10,000 or more for facilitation on a visitor visa application, and sometimes in the multiple tens of thousands for permanent residency applications, such as spousal-sponsorship applications. For many people, again, this could represent their entire net worth.
They know the stories about people who have been abused and whose chances of coming to Canada have been hindered as a result. Yes, I would say that this is broadly supported among cultural communities.
Senator Eaton: Our universities are trying hard to attract foreign students from India and other places. When somebody writes for an application, are our universities equipped to help facilitate student visas or to help them fill out forms so they are not prey to these consultants?
Mr. Kenney: Yes, but one of the problems we have with respect to the quality of student visa applications is often that Canadian post-secondary institutions will hire recruiting agents overseas to attract students. They see the foreign students as a source of revenue, so it is very much a commercial exercise for them. In turn, the recruitment agents get a percentage of, presumably, the tuition that the university or college will receive. They, therefore, have an incentive to often cut corners.
One of the reasons we have had problems in the acceptance rate of student visas in the past, in places like India and China, has been the number of bad applications submitted by unscrupulous recruitment agents. We have found some ways to improve that situation.
For example, we signed an agreement two years ago with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges, ACCC, in India to ensure the quality of the applications. Now, the ACCC essentially vouches for the applications being submitted to their member colleges. They have to have a certain degree of language proficiency.
Under this agreement, the recruitment agents are not paid until the student shows up and enrols in school. The agents often say to the kids, "I will get you a student visa. You can live with your aunt and uncle in Canada and work and do whatever. You do not have to show up in school."
We have found ways to improve the quality of the applications by getting the colleges to get more scrupulous, ethical and professional recruitment agents.
In China last September, I announced a similar agreement with the ACCC.
Senator Eaton: If I am thinking of immigrating to this country, can I just go to the Citizenship and Immigration Canada website? Is it simple? Is it in several languages? People are getting to be Internet savvy, especially in countries like India and China.
Mr. Kenney: A fair and honest answer to your question is, no; it is not an easy process and is not available in non- official languages.
In June of 2008, the standing committee recommended that we look at ways of simplifying the application process. We are moving in that direction and are in the process of bringing our "Global Case Management System" on stream; it is a new information technology database for all of our visa applications. This will allow us to accept online applications, like the Canada Revenue Agency does now with tax filings.
Once that is fully in place, it will be easier to walk people through the process online.
I have asked the department to look at how we might be able to provide basic tips in non-official languages.
In our missions abroad and on our website, we publish warnings in English, French and the local languages about crooked consultants. I think we have 17 different languages.
We say that they do not need to use an intermediary to apply to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and, if they do, to make sure they are licenced and ethical and have a solid reputation.
[Translation]
Senator Champagne: I will be brief because you answered many of the questions I wanted to ask. I am very glad to hear that, on your many trips abroad, you try to secure the help of the ministers in those countries, in order to remove a large number of the crooked consultants from the market. I think that is an excellent step.
The other issue I wanted to discuss further was what can we do to let people in those countries know that many of the individuals who claim to be consultants are in fact not registered and may take them down a windy and unpleasant path. I was very impressed to learn that Canada's immigration site contains warnings available in the languages of these would- be immigrants, because I find it hard to imagine that anyone wanting to come to Canada to earn a living or attend school, be it a student or someone else, would not know how to use a computer. Those were the two issues I wanted to address. Senator Mercer raised one of them, and Senator Merchant raised the other.
I commend you for using your visits to other countries to try to eliminate as many of these unscrupulous individuals as possible and to make people in our primary immigrant-source countries aware that there are problems and pitfalls and that they need to exercise caution. Once you have this group, you could even tell them to make sure their consultant is duly registered and to ask for their business card. Mind you, anyone can have business cards made up to say whatever they want, but there has to be a way to help people make sure that the person they are relying on and eventually handing over their money to will be someone who can actually provide them with what they want, whether it be a visa or an opportunity to immigrate to Canada.
Mr. Kenney: Thank you, Senator. I should add that we have also been posting TV ads on YouTube for two years now in some 17 different languages, I believe, to warn people about crooked consultants. That is in addition to the written warnings that appear on our Web site and in our offices overseas. We have made every effort to warn people of the risks associated with this industry.
Senator Champagne: The purpose is to counter those other ads that are out there, in newspapers and so forth, is it not?
Mr. Kenney: Precisely. That is why we launched the ad campaign Senator Mercer mentioned. I assure you that these TV ads will be available — in other words, dubbed — in non-official languages and posted on the Internet for our clients overseas.
The last thing I want to say is that during my travels abroad, I meet with the ministers of those countries to stress the importance of a properly regulated domestic industry, but I also address the media there; I use the existing tools to draw media attention to the issue. Frankly, when Canada's immigration minister visits Punjab, it makes the headlines. So I use the interest in our immigration program to drive home the message that it is neither necessary nor mandatory to use a consultant and that, if you do, you must make sure to use a registered consultant with an ethical track record. I reinforce that message every chance I get.
Senator Champagne: I am glad that Bill C-35 allows you to build on that momentum. I think you are on the right track.
Mr. Linklater: I just want to add to what the minister said and tell you that, at the international level, we are beginning to work more closely with foreign affairs so that we can educate and train our heads of mission around the world on the matter of crooked consultants and so that they, in turn, can raise the issue in their interactions with their counterparts in the source countries. That is being done by public servants, above and beyond the steps taken by the minister.
We are also endeavouring to work with our partners in friendly nations, including the U.S., Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand, to determine how all five host countries can take a more streamlined and coordinated approach to establishing campaigns or initiatives involving local authorities on the ground in source countries, such as China, with the goal of making people in those countries fully aware that the host countries will not tolerate fraud.
Senator Champagne: Thank you very much, and I commend you for that.
Elaine Menard, Legal Counsel, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Very quickly, I would just like to add one more thing. It is something simple but incredibly important, in my view. On the application form to immigrate to Canada, there is a field that asks whether you have a consultant or not, and if you do, you must provide not only the person's name but also their professional identification.
As a lawyer, I have an identification number. Consultants have one as well, and that allows us to conduct checks. So if someone in India or elsewhere says they are a consultant, they must provide their number, and that way we can check whether they are legitimate or not.
[English]
Senator Peterson: Thank you, minister, for your presentation.
I noticed in your presentation that there was no reference to unscrupulous shipowners and captains who load up their vessels with refugees and set sail for Canada. Is this an oversight or is this a matter for another day?
Mr. Kenney: It is a matter for another piece of legislation that we have. We seek, in Bill C-49, to give the Minister of Public Safety the capacity to designate a mass arrival in a human smuggling operation. That is addressed in Bill C-49, which is before the house.
Senator Peterson: You intend to get them at the source rather than when they are halfway here?
Mr. Kenney: Yes. The best approach to preventing those mass smuggling operations is operationally in the transit countries, primarily. In the case of Canada, the primary transit country has been Thailand. Since those vessels arrived in 2009 and 2010, we significantly increased the presence of Canadian security and police agencies working in Thailand and other Southeast Asian countries, working with the local police and our Australian partners in trying to interdict and interrupt the activities of the smuggling rings. In that particular stream, it tends to be for smuggling rings that used to be focused on the contraband smuggling of arms into the Sri Lankan civil war, and now they have moved on to people as their commodity. In the last few months, we have had considerable success in interrupting their operations, thanks to local police cooperation. However, we also believe that there is a need for greater legislative powers so that we can take away the incentive for those people in targeting Canada.
Senator Martin: Thank you, minister. We heard at our last session from consultants and lawyers about the closing of the loophole and what this bill addresses and why it is needed. Thank you for your work on that, and to the officials.
I want to say that I have witnessed you first-hand in the town halls and cross-country consultations that you have done with the immigrant communities, hearing about these issues. I am sure these issues have been raised, such as the one we are addressing in this bill, whether it is marriage fraud, live-in caregivers and so on. I know about the kind of work you have done and I have also read about you in the Korean media from when you were in Toronto.
You said the message will be transmitted to source countries. The Korea Times Daily in Toronto is a franchise that is international. Not only is it getting to Koreans across Canada, but also in Korea and around the world. The media piece is a key point.
I want to ask you specifically about your communications strategy. I think we all agree that the bill does address the loophole and that it is needed. However, in rolling out the new regulations and enforcement, et cetera, the media, especially the ethnic media, is important.
In Korea, for instance, there is a 98-per-cent literacy rate so farmers are reading it as well. Information will get to individuals. I often get calls and emails from Korea asking about things they have read about. This is very global, and we need a key media strategy. I want to ask you about the communications strategy that you have been thinking about for this.
Mr. Kenney: As I mentioned, two years ago we launched YouTube ads, or Internet video ads, in 17 different languages, on this theme. We also started our postings in 17 different languages on the websites at our CIC offices and visa application centres, which are contract offices that we use for temporary resident visa applications. This is on the paid media side.
We have also, as I mentioned, launched the TV campaign to which Senator Mercer referred, which will have an overseas dimension. I think you will understand, senator, that there are families in Canada who often invite people to immigrate or to visit here, and if they get the clear sense about who is an appropriate licensed immigration consultant and who is not, they can help to coach people back home in a positive way.
We will be rolling out focused Internet ads in online media in our principal immigration-source countries. I do not know whether Korea will be on the list. Frankly, Korea is one of the countries from which we have fewer integrity problems. Not to say that all the applications are perfect, but I have not heard of any significant integrity problems coming out of Korea. That is the paid media portion, and the current ad campaign is in the range of $2 million.
Then there is the earned media aspect that I responded to Senator Champagne about, where basically I take every opportunity I can, whether it is with domestic ethnic media or media overseas, to keep hammering away this message. Usually, the first question is: Why is it so difficult in our country — fill in the blank — for people to get visas? I will explain the legal framework, how we assess visas and whether someone is likely to go back.
Then I will say: However, the big problem that we have are all the unscrupulous immigration agents and consultants who are submitting fraudulent applications and counterfeit documents, exploiting people, and taking their money. Those are the people who are doing the most damage to people's chances of getting a positive answer on their application.
I try to tie it back to their own interest, if you will. If they want a visa to come to Canada to visit family, do not go to a crooked consultant. That does get play in the media.
We have limited resources. What we are doing now is more than the government has ever done to raise awareness about the issue, and we will continue to do so, both through paid media, as budgets permit, and through earned media as much as possible.
Senator Martin: In the source countries themselves, I know that the Canadian embassies play an integral role and often employ the nationals, the locals who are there. Another area could be these partners that will be helping convey the information clearly to the public. I have had experience with embassies in terms of help that I have received, as well as with some of the emergencies, the kind of work they are doing on the ground.
Mr. Kenney: That brings forward an interesting aspect to the issue, which is that often participants in this underground industry of unscrupulous immigration agents will claim or pretend to have a special contact in the Canadian mission. This is how the rumour starts to circulate in many of these communities. I am sure you have heard this, that in that mission or in that Canadian mission abroad, you can buy a visa out of the back door if you just know the right person. There is corruption going on. The locally engaged staff are all on the take.
We have done everything we can to review these allegations. There is never any proof or names. It is always a generalized accusation. What is really going on is that consultants pretend they know someone on the inside and they are selling that purported access, which does not really exist. People too often fall for that. Let us face it; in many countries in which we operate, paying officials is a way to get things done. People naturally think: If that is how it works with my domestic government, maybe that is how it works with the Canadian government. People too often fall for that.
The second thing is that, in most cases, our locally engaged staff are not empowered to make decisions on visa applications. They do administrative work. Very few of our locally engaged staff actually have the power to say "yea" or "nay" on a visa application. We try to take measures to ensure that that kind of corruption does not happen.
We started to see the classic example of this phenomenon in our Chandigarh office in Punjab a couple of years ago, where people were coming in off the street saying, "Why did you reject my application? Here is my rejection letter." Our officials would look up the application referenced on the rejection letter and say, "Well, there is no such application. We never received such an application." What happened is that the consultants were now actually taking the money, not submitting an application, but two weeks later generating a fake counterfeit rejection letter and sending it on bogus Government-of-Canada stationery to the applicant. That is how bad it has become in some places.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you, minister. First, as an observation, I think your domestic advertising on the issue of immigration consultants is very valuable. There is considerable evidence that, as you have pointed out, a great deal of communication goes between communities from within the country back to the countries of origin. Often, it is one of the first lines of contact and, therefore, the awareness here is an important issue.
The question I wanted to ask you relates back to Senator Mercer's question with regard to the development of regulations. Is it not correct that there is a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate called Scrutiny of Regulations, and that when regulations are developed for any piece of legislation which receives Royal Assent, they must pass through that committee to ensure their conformity to the various existing Canadian laws and the language, such that it meets legal requirements in both official languages?
Mr. Kenney: Yes, there is. That is a great leading question. I will refer to Mr. Linklater.
Mr. Linklater: I would refer to my counsel, Ms. Menard. Essentially, all regulations are pre-published in the Canada Gazette. Following a comment and prepublication, we move to final publication.
The process to get to prepublication is quite involved and involves a lot of consultation with the Department of Justice, in particular, and departmental legal services to help with the drafting to ensure conformity with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and other statutes to ensure that the policy directions are captured accurately in the legal language.
There is the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations which does, from time to time, review regulatory schemes to look for any inconsistencies or gaps between the English and the French, between the policy intent, and whether the regulations are ultra vires.
In terms of the technicalities, I would ask Ms. Menard to explain.
Ms. Menard: As clarification, the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations will often look at the regulations after they have been passed. They then come back to the department and seek clarification or ask them to basically justify why it is written in such a way. Sometimes, regulations have to be amended because they are either ultra vires or not in conformity with the rules of statutory interpretation.
Senator Ogilvie: Thank you very much. Having served on the committee, I am aware of the process and the fact that, indeed, often the issues are caught through the process that you have outlined. It is a very thorough review once that occurs, and the committee has considerable power to deal with these issues so that regulations are not just willy- nilly laid upon society. Thank you.
The Chair: Looking at who is on the joint committee from the Senate, Senator Martin is on it, Senator Harb, Senator Moore and Senator Hervieux-Payette.
Senator Martin: As well as Senator Boisvenu.
As a co-chair of that committee, I can definitely speak to the kind of scrutiny that all of the regulations go through. I am sure others who have served on the committee could as well. There are files that can be many years old because a point will not be let go until addressed. It is a very thorough committee.
Senator Mercer: My follow-up on the question of regulations was really the fact that regulations coming into effect can pass the sniff test, if you will, at the committee level. As you use the regulations, there is a time period that goes by where you say, it does not matter whether they passed the sniff test and the department liked them, but how do they work and are they any damn good? Is there a process to review those so we do not end up with regulations that are cumbersome to you, as minister, or your successors, or to the people trying to operate within the confines of the laws that we pass?
That was my concern. We need to have a process where we go back and say, now that we have done this work and we have been doing it for some time, is it working? If not, how do we fix it?
Mr. Kenney: In a sense, that is what we are doing. The current regime was put in place about six years ago, and there was pretty broad recognition that it was not working optimally. This comes from learned experience in the past few years, both the statutory amendments we proposed and the consequential regulatory changes. It is an ongoing learning process. If, in the future, we find that this regime is not optimal, certainly a future government will be open to changing it.
Senator Seidman: Thank you, minister. I wanted to ask a question about the teeth of the bill in pursuing the unscrupulous consultants. You do, in fact, talk about the authority to make regulations, which we have been talking about, and to facilitate disclosure of information concerning the alleged unethical or unprofessional conduct of immigration representatives to the responsible governing body. You say this would allow the governing body to pursue appropriate disciplinary action.
I am thinking specifically of protection for complainants who might be applicants and feeling vulnerable and threatened. Could you talk a bit about that?
Mr. Kenney: Protection in what respect?
Senator Seidman: I refer to your comment that the governing body will be able to pursue appropriate disciplinary actions.
Mr. Kenney: Every professional governing body has the power to impose disciplinary action on its members who have been found to violate professional or ethical practice. We anticipate that the governing body here will have to conform to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act. If a member of the body has a complaint to make against their governing body, they could do so under the recent amendments to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.
Every professional licensing body in the country, whether they are national or provincial, must govern themselves according to the established principles of administrative fairness of natural justice. They have legal recourse, ultimately, to the courts if those principles are violated.
I think our entire body of administrative law will be accessible to members of the governing body. If they find the governing body is unfairly disciplining them, for example, they can seek relief from the courts, particularly here, as it will likely conform to the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act.
Mr. Linklater: The only thing I would add would be in terms of current practice, when our officers overseas discover an unauthorized consultant acting for an individual, the only recourse really is for us to refuse the application using misrepresentation provisions, as the minister outlined, in section 40 of the act.
With the changes in Bill C-35, we are creating a new offence as well that will allow CBSA, Canada Border Services Agency, to investigate and prosecute cases where someone is actually holding themselves out as an authorized consultant when, in fact, they are not. We will then be able to penalize the perpetrator as opposed to the victim of the fraud.
Senator Seidman: That is the key, thank you. I appreciate hearing that.
Mr. Kenney: I should always let my officials answer all the questions.
The Chair: You have done very well. You have answered a lot.
Senator Cordy: Last week, we heard from Richard Kurland who is from Vancouver. He talked about following the Quebec model for those coming in on the investor program.
The Quebec agreement indicates that you have to make the investment with a broker or a trust company. He told us that people are sometimes coming in under the investor program and giving huge amounts of money to someone. They do not end up getting value for money. That would be a nice way of saying it. I suggested to Mr. Kurland that we put this in as an observation from our committee, so when the regulation is developed, it would red flag it as a possibility for a regulation. That is so that the person coming in has their money safeguarded in a program.
Mr. Linklater: It was interesting to see what Mr. Kurland said last week.
The way the federal immigrant investor program works is we work with a number of financial institutions, primarily, that are members of CDIC, Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation. They are insured and airtight. We designate those institutions to act as what we call facilitators.
Those facilitators work to recruit individuals who apply under the immigrant protection program and to assist them with financing their investment and that sort of thing.
For the integrity of the process, the way the money passes from them to us and then back to the applicant is airtight. We do not understand how the Quebec model would make a difference in the federal system.
Senator Cordy: So it would not be a benefit?
Mr. Linklater: No.
Senator Cordy: As the system is set up now, there is protection for the investment money?
Mr. Linklater: Absolutely, as well as for the commissions paid to the facilitators.
Senator Cordy: That would not have to be put in a regulation?
Mr. Linklater: It should not be, no.
The Chair: The bells will start ringing any moment for the house vote. We will adjourn this portion of it.
Let me say thank you very much, minister, to you and to your officials for being here today and helping us better understand Bill C-35.
We will continue with clause-by-clause consideration.
A possible draft observation for our discussion has been circulated. When I get to that point, we can talk about what we want to do about it.
In the normal procedure of considering a bill clause by clause, I will ask, is it agreed the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-35, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried. Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to append observations to the report?
There is one possible observation that arises from the organizations that were here a week ago, and it says that paralegals should be getting proper education to get into this area.
Do you have any thoughts on that? Does that seem reasonable? It is an observation; it does not change anything. Does everyone agree to that?
Senator Cordy: Should we put a little preamble in front of it, such as the committee heard representation from?
The Chair: We could say that.
Senator Cordy: I have no problem with the premise behind the observation, but it should be a little more explanatory to someone reading it.
Senator Ogilvie: I have no problem with the observation at all. I think it is useful to put it forward. I thought the minister gave a very good response today with regard to this issue, indicating that the law society does require training in the paralegal area. Nevertheless, the confidence level of pointing this out is valuable and useful.
With regard to Senator Cordy's comment, it seems that we do not need a large preamble.
Senator Cordy: I mean a sentence or two. Sorry. When I said "preamble," I did not mean a page.
Senator Ogilvie: I am wondering if we might simply have an indication that the committee notes that paralegals have been brought into the categories that have the authority to deal with this and adds the following observation.
The Chair: Is that agreed?
Senator Eaton: I think it would make people more confident that paralegals, despite what the minister and the other person said, are not to operate outside their area of jurisdiction, according to the Law Society of Upper Canada. If it gives people confidence, why not?
The Chair: That is what it does.
Senator Cordy: Our witnesses will realize that we have recognized the validity of what they have said.
The Chair: What we normally do is a preamble along the lines of what Senator Ogilvie described.
Are the observation and steering committee agreed to?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: That is carried.
Is it agreed that I report this bill with the one observation to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Will I introduce it tomorrow? I do not see why not.
The steering committee meets tomorrow after the main committee meeting.
Tomorrow, the main committee hearing formally starts the health accord.
We will have two of the entities that have been involved in monitoring it and were set up relevant to it. We will also have Statistics Canada.
This meeting is now adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)