STANDING COMMITTEE ON CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA CITOYENNETÉ ET DE L'IMMIGRATION

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, February 18, 1999

• 0912

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North—St. Paul, Lib.)): I now call the meeting to order.

As you may know, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are studying the business immigration program. Today we have with us several witnesses from the Law Society of Upper Canada, the Canadian Bar Association, and an individual law firm, who will be sharing with us their views and concerns on this issue of the business immigration program of Canada.

I would like to indicate to the witnesses before us that they should limit their presentation, as a group, to 10 minutes each for opening remarks, and if you are two in a group, divide it between yourselves the best way you can. For the individual presenter, of course, we will allow 10 minutes. So already I am looking at a total of half an hour of presentations, maximum. If you can make it much shorter than that, much the better, because it will allow for a greater interaction with the members of the committee.

It has been my observation that the members of this committee are very quick to pick up the issues you may have highlighted, even just in bullet points, and they will probe you with questions the best they can.

On that note, who would like to start the presentation?

Mr. Green, you may proceed, please.

Mr. Mendel M. Green (Chair, Immigration Law Specialty Committee, Law Society of Upper Canada): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As indicated, my name is Mendel Green and I am presently the chair of the immigration law specialty committee of the Law Society of Upper Canada. They have implemented a new program where they certify specialists in various aspects of law, and immigration law is in fact one of those specialties.

What their purpose is, quite frankly, is to ensure that the specialists are noted for their competence, honesty, and integrity. In the province of Ontario there are only 17 specialists certified by the law society.

• 0915

Before you, you have a 32-page brief that has been prepared and endorsed by the specialists in immigration law noted thereon. All of those we contacted and could reach in the short notice that we had have endorsed the brief. In addition, this brief has been endorsed by the national immigration section of the Canadian Bar Association.

The Chairman: I have just a quick interruption. I am told the brief the witness has brought with him is in the English language only. I know this committee would like to operate in two official languages, as an official policy. At the same time, the committee of course has no control as to the language in which the brief is submitted. So on that note, I'll ask, particularly the francophone members of the committee, but also the other members of the committee, if it would be okay now to distribute the brief in English only, so you may peruse it.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): But who submitted the translated brief we got? We have in front of us a brief prepared by specialists in immigration law. Would that be from the Canadian Bar Association? Is it a brief presented by witnesses?

[English]

Mr. Mendel Green: That is correct. We prepared an executive brief that has been translated into French and English, I believe.

The Chairman: Very good.

Mr. Réal Ménard: What a wonderful country. It's a joke.

The Chairman: It's a good country.

Mr. Ben Trister (Secretary, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): This brief was just adopted by the Canadian Bar Association yesterday. That's why it hasn't been translated. I certainly would expect they'll translate it and provide you with a French copy forthwith.

The Chairman: The committee will appreciate that.

Proceed, Mr. Green.

Mr. Mendel Green: As I indicated, in addition this brief has been reviewed by the Canadian Bar Association nationally, the immigration section, and approved just yesterday. We've only had six days to produce this. In addition, the Canadian Bar Association of Ontario, citizenship and immigration section, has endorsed this brief. So virtually what you have before you is a brief that has been endorsed by immigration law specialists of the law society and the group representing about 600 to 700 immigration lawyers across Canada.

What we are extremely concerned about is the business immigration program. I know you've had evidence of declining numbers. You've probably been told that within the immigration system there have been tremendous volumes, and the declining numbers certainly don't substantiate that. But what is of most concern for all Canadians, frankly, is the declining dollar volume of investment that is coming to Canada by a system that I respectfully suggest is not operating in a businesslike fashion.

Within this brief you will see that the policy statement of the Immigration Act is, of course, to encourage business immigration. That's a legislative policy to increase our economic and demographic goals in Canada. You've got to understand that legislatively, the policy of the Canadian government is to encourage economic investment in Canada. Canadians have benefited dramatically. You will see that from 1995 to 1997, $1.32 billion has been invested in this country by entrepreneurs. Under the immigrant investor program, $10 billion has been invested.

Unfortunately, the numbers are dropping. They dropped almost 35% in the year 1998. I'm telling you that does not tell the whole picture, because what you're getting from the statistics you're being given are the end figures. The intake has diminished. People are not interested in coming to Canada under the business immigration program because of the regretful bureaucracy that is in place and the almost insurmountable obstacles that are being placed in the way of business people.

Putting aside for the moment the investment of capital, job creation has been a significant factor. The provincial governments have numbers. We haven't had an opportunity to provide them to you, but virtually tens of thousands of Canadians have been put to work because of the business immigration program. It is an established fact. But again, that in no way demonstrates.... Forgetting about all the money the business people bring here for business, think about the houses they buy, the consumer goods they buy, and all of the other added benefits we Canadians get from the business immigration program.

• 0920

One of the reasons for the failure of the program, frankly, is diminishing resources. Immigration has cut its foreign staff by 30% in the past few years.

Immigration has changed its priorities in processing business applications initially. We first process refugees in eastern Europe. Belgrade was and is a place where emerging business persons are coming from now, but they can't deal with business persons in Belgrade because they're dealing with refugees.

The family class used to be next on the list and then business applications. Now it is helter-skelter in their processing priorities, and business persons are placed at the bottom of the list.

They've reconfigured the business immigration program, and one of the topics is these new business centres they've established.

We are not here telling you about clients' problems, but we're raising with you examples of clients' problems to demonstrate how the system really works.

In case 1 on page 8 of my brief, a $1.5-million entrepreneur filed his application in Bonn on July 14, 1998. Bonn is a business centre now—very efficient. They sent it to Moscow in July, and Moscow got it in July—that's very efficient. Moscow has set an appointment for that business person to be interviewed in the year 2000.

That's not the end of it. After that person is interviewed, he has to take medicals and he has to go for a security check. So what you're looking at from start to finish is approximately three to four years for a business person to get to Canada.

Does that make any common business or economic sense for we Canadians who get billions of dollars from the business immigration process? I suggest to you absolutely not.

Business people have to make business decisions. Could you decide to invest in a business four years down the line? I suggest not.

There's a process within the Immigration Act called early entry. It is a misconstrued concept. They have the authority to permit the business immigrant to come forward early, but there's a systemic paranoia that rich business people from the new emerging economies are fraudulent, so if they let an individual come to Canada early, they're worried they won't be able to get rid of them. It makes no common sense.

You will see examples of people who are presently exporting millions and millions of dollars of business from Canada not being given temporary entry while their immigrant application is being processed. Processing of business applications...quite frankly, our national banks would have difficulty having their financials approved.

In emerging economies, where the words “chartered accountant” were not known five years ago, or in economies where the tax person does not enforce taxes, and in the Middle East where there are no taxes, many people have not filed profit and loss statements. Immigration now, in China, in Russia, and in the eastern European sections, is suggesting that a business person who even has some semblance of financial records go to the big six accounting companies in Canada and spend $15,000 to $20,000 to have their records assessed so that Immigration can establish where they got their money from on day one.

A classic example is a $12.5-million woman from Columbia who applied two or three years ago and had incredible financial statements, but her late husband, who died 11 years ago, had a brother who was a drug baron. This woman has had audited financial statements for the past 11 years. Bogota, the embassy that's dealing with it, doesn't know how to deal with it. They sent the file to Ottawa, and Ottawa has lost the file. These are facts. This is not something that is just helter-skelter; it is commonplace. Why should we Canadians be held up with a $12-million business person not coming here?

There's another case of a $75-million business person who was approved by a visa post, and he had audited financial statements from British accountants. But because of the paranoia in Ottawa, he has been held up two and a half years. Ottawa said, call him back, interview him again, and just make sure every “i” is dotted and every “t” is crossed.

• 0925

He came for his interview. He waited three and a half hours and the person who was supposed to interview him didn't show up. Just think of a Canadian business person from a multinational corporation being treated in that fashion.

On Monday morning of this week, a business person from Pakistan—in Pakistan, it takes four years to be processed—flew to Damascus. He went there without his wife. He was turned away and was told that if his wife was not with him, he would not be interviewed. He said his wife had just had a baby and he could not bring her. He was told to go home to Pakistan.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars destined for Canada are treated, quite frankly, like garbage. The department is not sensitive to the business psyche, the business culture, or anything like that.

Ladies and gentlemen, you will see processing times on page 23 of our brief. These are average processing times in major posts: New York, 32 months; New Delhi, 22 months; Beijing, 21 months. And it's getting worse. Those are past processing times. Immigration bureaucracy and bureaucrats need more resources. They need more training. Really, they need more expertise.

In regard to background clearance, nobody wants criminals to come to Canada. Everyone supports that proposition. I don't know how large or small the background clearance process is, but even after an immigrant is provisionally approved for immigration, it's taking almost two years for the background clearance people to deal with him. That is outrageous. Clients of mine are going to other countries; they're investing their money in other countries.

I must say, I've been practising law for almost 39 years. For the first time, people are saying forget it, they're not waiting. They can't put their children in school in September because they don't know if they're going to be given an immigration visa.

The Citizenship Act is something I want to deal with.

The Chairman: You're at about ten minutes now.

Mr. Mendel Green: All right.

The Chairman: I would go, I assume, to the Canadian Bar Association and Mr. Trister.

Mr. Ben Trister: Actually, if it's acceptable to you, I'd prefer to yield to Mr. Rotenberg.

The Chairman: I thought you had discussed among yourselves dividing the ten minutes.

Mr. Ben Trister: I'm sorry, but if I can just get clarification, it's ten minutes for the law society, ten minutes for—

The Chairman: The bar association.

Mr. Ben Trister: In that case, I'm going to yield to Colin Singer, because we'd like to give you our comments on the investor brief we have before us.

No, sorry, Cecil will go, and then maybe we'll just answer questions. We'll do what we can.

The Chairman: Just so we are agreed in terms of process, after your presentation of an additional ten minutes, will you yield your time to him?

Mr. Ben Trister: No, I don't have to speak. I'm content to let Mr. Singer speak.

Mr. Colin R. Singer (Executive Member, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association): I can answer questions, I can speak, or I can let Mr. Rotenberg speak first and then speak after him.

The Chairman: Good. Then the chair rules that Mr. Rotenberg will get ten minutes maximum. After that, we will proceed to Mr. Zaifman, and then we will open to general questions.

An hon. member: Hear, hear.

Mr. Colin Singer: Will I speak after Mr. Rotenberg?

The Chairman: Well, Mr. Rotenberg then cannot have any more minutes.

Mr. Cecil L. Rotenberg (Immigration Law Specialist, Law Society of Upper Canada; Canadian Bar Association): I'll try to only take five minutes so that Mr. Singer has some time.

There's a great deal of confusion as to who represents who, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that I'm in the middle. I represent both the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of Upper Canada, so I'll take two and a half minutes for each.

The Chairman: That's why you're in the middle.

Proceed, Mr. Rotenberg.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity that this committee is giving to us.

My perspective is one of forty years. I think I'm the most senior lawyer in the immigration bar; I don't think there's anybody who's had more years either in immigration or at the bar than myself. From my perspective, from the perspective of our specialists' committee, from the perspective of the thousands of lawyers I've spoken to across the country, and from the perspective of the Immigration Law Reporter—I founded that and I'm now the editor-in-chief—I have a message. The message is that business immigration has never been worse. The problems have never been more systemic. The problems have never been more endemic. There are several reasons for this, from my perspective. They are both structural and legal.

The structural problems have to do with the organization of the immigration department itself, which has been almost continually reorganized since I started making submissions there. There have been plenty of reorganizations. In the past, they had a vertical management structure and the problems rolled up to one top. From what we see, it seems that the problems are now dealt with at a horizontal management position. In our view, this leads to a great deal of inefficiency, because there's no one at the top who really understands the problems as they exist in unity.

• 0930

The second thing is that the people involved in policy have no program accountability. I remember Mr. John Martin used to be a chap we could talk to, who would listen to us, who would hear our problems, but then he would say he was sorry but he had no program responsibility and there was nothing he could do.

So the people in charge of the business program have no way of implementing it, or amending it, or doing anything to it on a practical basis.

The second part is that despite all of these reorganizations structurally, there's no one anywhere who's a listening post. The smallest business has a complaints box. Immigration, which is the largest business, which has the most far-flung empire, has no one to whom you can tell anything that's by way of complaint, and we have plenty. There are a lot of them, and if you read the brief, you'll see this is just a small version of it. That's just the evidence from two offices. If there's no listening post, then there's no accountability and there's no one to know when the program is going awry.

I have put in the brief three cases, which I would ask you to look at, because they represent the legal aspects of this thing.

There's a case called Ramoutar at tab 5. That case lays down the proposition that when an applicant has the onus of satisfying a visa officer under the Immigration Act, the onus is on a civil standard. That means on the basis of probability. However, what is happening is that offices require things to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The two cases at tab 4 and tab 6 demonstrate exactly that.

The Dr. Koo case has been included, and I would ask you to imagine yourselves as Dr. Koo. Dr. Koo is the chief operating officer of a subsidiary of a multinational company. He operates, I think, a complement of 20 or 40 people, with sales of something like $17 million or $20 million. There's no question that he “operates, controls or directs a company”, and these are the operative words of an investor.

He made an investment of $350,000 into British Columbia, and he expected to pass, because he was very clearly one who operated, controlled, and directed a company or a business. But Ms. Coutler of the visa office in Hong Kong said no, you have to operate, control, or direct the head office. This might be a legitimate interpretation, had it not already been decided at the Federal Court of Appeal by Mr. Justice Cullen. Who better than he, a former minister of immigration?

Not only did Mr. Justice Cullen say to Dr. Koo, you or your kind are an investor, but two other judges said it as well, and yet this case managed to pass through and get refused, because of a violation of the principles set up by Mr. Justice Cullen. Not only did it get refused, but it managed to pass a very strong program manager, and it managed to pass into immigration headquarters. Even the justice department tried to defend it. Mr. Justice Muldoon correctly called it “trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear”, and so the matter went back. Dr. Koo was happy. He got his vindication.

A second visa officer started to do the same thing, so now we're in court trying to stop him from doing that.

The problem is if you are that investor and you have a legal process and you have a judge on your side, how can this be disregarded? Why can it be disregarded? Who to tell? Who am I going to talk to about this thing being disregarded? There's no one with that kind of program responsibility anywhere in the system.

The Chairman: I regret to interrupt you, but I should push on now to Mr. Singer.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Yes, I'm finished. Thank you.

Mr. Colin Singer: Mr. Chairman, members, I'll be very brief. Most of what we have to say is in the brief that was submitted earlier on the proposed regulatory changes to the immigrant investor program.

When you read that brief, I would like you to first ask the question to yourselves, are the economic interests of Canada being better served with fewer investors? That is the conclusion of our members, who have been consulted from east coast to west coast. We are unanimous in our belief that the proposed changes will continue to promote fewer investors to Canada.

• 0935

A number of reasons are outlined in the brief, and perhaps later on in the session we will be able to address each and every one of them.

We feel that the objectives of the act are not being furthered, and we recommend and urge that these proposed regulations be delayed, sine die, until further studies planned for the near future are put in the pipeline by the CIC.

Substantial legislative initiatives are now on the table. For example, the white paper is a significant development by the department, and it encompasses in this whole process the overhaul of legislation in the immigration field in Canada. The immigrant investor program, as my colleague has pointed out, is a very important part of Canada's economic policies regarding immigration.

If you read this brief and you understand the gist of it, you will see that we are proceeding with regulatory enactment before the main piece of legislation has been implemented, because we know that the CIC plans to implement an overhauled piece of legislation that deals with the immigrant investor program, among others.

If you take a look at one of the reports that was filed in 1998 called Not Just Numbers, you'll see that the minister plans to change the immigrant investor selection process by placing the emphasis on age, language, and education. We know now that those criteria can affect the qualifications required for individuals to come to Canada. It is very questionable, therefore, to implement a regulatory piece of legislation that is subsidiary to legislation when we know that in the future the legislation will change very important criteria that deal with those people who can qualify to come to Canada. If the minister were to proceed with this enactment, we would be advancing the process of closing the doors on the immigrant investor program.

On that point, I would defer to my colleague, who may wish to add some points I may not have covered.

Mr. Ben Trister: I would say that it is very much the perception of the bar that the department is regressing. We are lawyers first and foremost. I think some of my partners think I'm a businessman first, but many immigration lawyers are thought of in that way. But I can tell you we're all lawyers. We take the law, democracy, Parliament—the whole package—very seriously.

The department is embarking on a number of changes in immigration, citizenship, and the investor program that to us are very serious. I want to add only one comment to what Cecil had to say and that is that it's not a surprise to those of us who practise this on a daily basis that the department consistently ignores its own policy or sanctions the uneven application of its policy. It repeatedly ignores court decisions and it has no respect for the courts. We can see that from its attempts to take away the right to judicial review and appeals by imposing leave requirements in the legislative amendments they put forward. We think all of this will serve to create and even compound the many injustices that already exist in our system.

It is very frustrating to be an applicant in a system where the law is disregarded and where the government talks about transparency, which we all think is great, but which they don't have. They think of transparency as “This is how we're going to nail you. We're not going to tell you how we're going to nail you, but we're going to make it seem as if you're going to be okay, and then you're not going to be okay. We'll give you clear rules that give you the impression you're going to make it, and then we're going to put many roadblocks in the way, with timing, security checks, and requirements on documenting funds in cultures that don't play by the same rules.” All of these obstacles are being put into place, and then we're saying, “And to boot, we're going to take away your right to complain.”

• 0940

It's a very serious time. I urge you to look at what the department and the government are presenting to you in the form of legislation, because from a lawyer's point of view, we're incensed, and we're even reaching the point of focusing our attention on lobbying efforts to make sure these things don't happen. It's not a good time in immigration law.

The Chairman: Thank you so much, Mr. Trister.

Now I give the floor to Mr. Zaifman.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman (President, Zaifman Associates): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the committee for permitting me to testify.

I'd like to address my remarks essentially to the immigrant investor program, which is part of this committee's review. Being from Manitoba, my perspective on immigration is somewhat different from that of some of my colleagues from the east.

I'd like to step back for a moment and ask the question, what was the purpose of the immigrant investor program? The original purpose was to attract investment capital to provinces that were not receiving a significant number of entrepreneurs. Before there was the investor program, we had only the entrepreneurial program, and provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta were not receiving a significant number of entrepreneurs. Then the idea was, if we can't get the body, perhaps we can attract some investment capital to the province. That was the reason for the immigrant investor program. It was intended to be a venture capital program.

What do we have now? Essentially, we have a program that has very little economic benefit, is guaranteed in all respects, and has not addressed the original purpose for which it was implemented.

The department in its presentation said the reason you want to increase the amount to $500,000 is because now it's guaranteed. But in fact, the present program is guaranteed. We have financing that enables an investor to invest an amount of money in the range of $76,500 to approximately $95,000, and there is no recourse for the loan. So we have a guaranteed program. There is no reason to increase the amount at this particular point in time.

But the real issue is what the government wants this program to do, and they have not addressed that issue in the redesigned program. The RIA statement says to increase the economic benefit. From what? To what? Reduce the potential for abuse. There are only government funds and investment dealers in the Quebec program. Where's the abuse? What's the abuse? Are they saying governments are abusing the program? Reduce the level of government resources required to administer the program. We have at best three or four government funds currently in place. What resources will be reduced? The federal government does not monitor the program under the Quebec system. Offer provinces the opportunity to use investor money according to provincial economic priorities. We have that now.

The real issue is that essentially we have one country and two systems in the immigrant investor program. It is clear to any person who has worked in this area that the Quebec program is receiving over 80% of the funds destined for the program. They are not receiving 80% of the immigrants. People are applying through the Quebec system and then living in Vancouver or Toronto. I don't quarrel with what the Quebec government is doing. I think they have it right, in the sense of the selection requirements, the speed of processing, and one method of investment. But the department is not dealing with that issue.

It is my view that under their proposal the federal single-window program will attract very little funds, and I repeat, very little. Nobody is going to invest $500,000 in a single federal fund when they can invest $130,000 in a Quebec fund if it's financed and the federal government is not financed. I think it's clear.

• 0945

So the formula they're proposing to attract funds to the rest of Canada is just not there.

What provinces have signed on? Why would a province guarantee money under this program? The redesigned program has to be redesigned.

So, again, I ask you to keep in mind, what is the purpose of the program? It's to attract capital in those provinces that are not attracting the entrepreneurs. If you keep your focus on that purpose, everything else will fall into place, in my view. This proposal does not do it.

The department is not correct in saying increase the amounts. The world tells us now is not a time to increase the investment amount if we want to attract any capital. Now is not the time to increase the net worth requirement.

I myself, if I can offer a suggestion, would go the other way. I might even reduce the amount. I might also reduce the selection requirements, to enable people who have received their funds by lawful means to invest in this program.

In other words, people who want to run a business can run a business. People who want to invest their funds in a government fund or with an investment dealer—in effect, like an immigration mutual fund—shouldn't necessarily have to have business experience. They want to let someone else do their investing for them.

I think that's a good, rather simplistic view, because that will allow provinces to participate. They will set their own needs and their own goals. I urge this committee to take those factors into account when it's looking at this component. In my view, the single federal fund will kill this program for the rest of Canada.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks so much, Mr. Zaifman. You allotted an extra four minutes.

We will start the questioning with the Reform Party, the official opposition. Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon E. Benoit (Lakeland, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome, gentlemen.

My first question is for you, Mr. Zaifman. You asked the rhetorical question, why would any of the investors invest anywhere else in Canada when they can invest very little and borrow the rest in Quebec? Could you explain in more detail what you're getting at there?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: With the structure of the funds now, each fund that I'm aware of allows an investor to invest either $250,000 or $350,000, depending on the province of investment. Each fund also offers financing, in which an investor can deposit $76,500 for a government fund or approximately $90,000 to $95,000 for a Quebec fund. The balance of the money is by way of loan, arranged by either the government fund or, in the case of Quebec, the—

Mr. Leon Benoit: A loan taken out here in Canada.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: A loan taken out in Canada.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So really, then, the investment is nowhere near what it's portrayed as.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: No.

Most investors take the loan option, in my experience. So, if I might just say, if this redesigned program requires an investor in a federal fund to invest a half a million dollars, but the Quebec program will stay the same, the only thing that will change will be the financed amount. So the deposit amount may go from, let's say, $90,000 or $95,000 to, let's say, $130,000. There will be such a disparity that a rational person is not going to invest a half a million dollars where he can invest $130,000.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I could understand that from the point of view of the investor, but when you're looking at Canada and what Canada's getting out of the deal, my question would be, in a situation like that, how much is Canada really getting from the investor program when the money is being lent inside the country here?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: At the risk of stating the obvious, once you inject financing into the program and permit it, the economic benefits are diminished to the point where they may not be recognizable.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Do the dollars of investment that are presented by the department include the amount that has been borrowed in the country as well?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Absolutely.

Mr. Leon Benoit: So it's really a bogus number. It is if you're looking at actual investment in the country.

Are these loans backed with assets outside the country—

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —or assets in the country?

• 0950

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: They're usually backed, in the case of Quebec, by the company that receives the loan, the investment.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Could you explain how that's done commonly?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: As I say, we have two separate systems, so I'll try to explain the Quebec system and the federal system, if I might.

In the federal system, a person who deposits an amount then pledges that note, the security he receives from the fund, as security for the loan. So in a sense he deposits $76,000, the loan is advanced to bring it up to $250,000, and the security for that loan is put up by the note the investor gets and the annual return he gets.

Mr. Leon Benoit: What's the collateral that's used?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: The note.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Private residence?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: No.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Nothing like that? Nothing here in Canada?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: There's no collateral.

Mr. Leon Benoit: There's something missing just from what you have explained so far. Where does the security really come in here?

Mr. Singer, I notice you are volunteering to get involved in this. I'd appreciate that.

Mr. Colin Singer: I'll try to put in a little additional insight.

Loans to investors are secured by the investment in the eligible corporation. That was to address that particular issue. But you're raising the question of what is the benefit. You seem to imply this is a bogus number, but I think you have to move back a little bit further and say what has been the benefit to the country. The minister acknowledges that $4 billion has been the benefit to Canada since 1986.

But you have to look at how many jobs have been created, not only the financial economic benefit. As a business man, when you engage another employee on your payroll and give that person a salary on a weekly basis, it is a benefit that the investor program has generated.

Mr. Leon Benoit: But in terms of the actual dollar amount that you've just mentioned that the department has put forth—

Mr. Colin Singer: They agree.

Mr. Leon Benoit: —we've just heard that in fact that's not an entirely accurate number.

Mr. Colin Singer: No.

Mr. Mendel Green: Mr. Benoit, may I put it more simplistically?

You invest $350,000 or $250,000 in the other provinces. A Canadian finance company says, “We will loan you money. You put up $73,000 or $79,000 and we'll put up the rest.” That money is then taken by the provincial government investor fund, $250,000 or $350,000, and jobs are created as a result thereof. That money would not get to those provincial funds without the immigrant investor program. In fact, you're investing $350,000 and you now have a piece of paper, a promissory note, from the government fund. You're going to a finance company—

Mr. Leon Benoit: I understand that.

Mr. Mendel Green: —and saying, I have an investment in Saskatchewan or in Prince Edward Island. Will you loan me some money on it? And they say, yes, we will. They take the security of the piece of paper, the promissory note.

So in fact the provinces are securing this money at minimal interest rates that they would not heretofore receive.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: It's a little different in Quebec, where the loans are secured by guarantees, bank notes, or trust funds, or Hydro bonds or something. So the security is there in Quebec.

Mr. Leon Benoit: A very high proportion of the money invested is invested in Quebec, isn't it?

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Exactly.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I forget the percentage.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: It's at 70%.

Mr. Colin Singer: It's presently at 70%, but you have to understand part of the reason is because there was a moratorium in the 1994-95 period. The number of units on the market became less and less and the province of Quebec became more and more attractive for investors as a whole. Now they're at about 70%, but historically they have managed, because of the aggressiveness of their program and the attractiveness of their program, to become a 50% partner in the immigrant investor program.

Part of the reason I was suggesting earlier for delaying is because the Quebec government is presently planning to overhaul its immigrant investor program. I can't imagine in any business world where you would not consult your 50% partner and say, let's build our model from here. The Quebec government is definitely at least a 50% partner, and they've achieved that success because of the program they have built up over time—a successful program, no doubt.

Quebec must be consulted while this particular regulation would be delayed.

Mr. Leon Benoit: How much of the money that goes through the Quebec plan is actually invested in Quebec?

• 0955

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: All of it.

Mr. Colin Singer: Any dollar that an investor would invest in a Quebec program is destined to a Quebec eligible corporation. Eligible is defined by the Immigration Act as who can participate and be a recipient of immigrant investor moneys. So 100% of every dollar goes to a Quebec company.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I don't know if that exactly answers my question. I'm asking how much of that money actually is invested in Quebec. The rules allow—

Mr. Mendel Green: It is 100%, sir. More importantly, the Quebec selection system, which is different from the CIC system, uses a common-sense approach to processing business people. If I am in China, I will select the Quebec program, which will give me a secure investment, and I will get to Canada in a timely fashion. If I select the Saskatchewan program, or the Prince Edward Island program, I'm going to be held up three or four years. Quebec will probably cut that down by 50% because they use common sense.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Zaifman, have you any comments on that, on whether in fact all of the money that is handled under the Quebec program is actually invested in Quebec? I've heard some different points of view on that.

The Chairman: Mr. Zaifman.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: When a fund has to arrange financing, whether it's under the Quebec program or under the federal program, a lender will look for security, whether it's security from the eligible corporation or, in the case of a federal fund, from the corporation in which it's invested. There's a cost to that security.

The actual amount that goes into an eligible corporation can vary from as little as $30,000 to maybe $100,000, depending on the particular transaction. I can't really tell you exact figures. All I can tell you is that under the federal fund, and the fund I'm most familiar with, a financial institution is not going to give financing, even to a government-administered fund, without a form of security. In order to obtain that security, the kinds of investments fund managers are required to put in must reduce the risk.

So in the case of a government fund, typically, at least 50% will go into what is probably called a risk-free investment, a crown lease, or some other type of investment, an infrastructure fund where the repayment to the fund is guaranteed. Probably about 30% goes into investments in small and medium businesses. I think that's the reality of the program we have today.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: If I were asked to describe your presentation, I would use three words: passion, frustration and fees. Of course, I understand about the frustration and I would like to talk about it to see how we could improve the program.

First, there was only one year when Quebec got 71% of the money to be invested, and it's 1997. If you wish me to do so, Mr. Chairman, I can table a schedule which could also be given to the witnesses and to my colleagues, and which shows estimates by the Quebec government on the breakdown of the funds.

Let's come back to administrative issues. We are going to table a report which, we hope, will be taken into consideration by the minister. On a practical basis, in terms of the way things are being done and of administrative process, what amendments would you propose? For example, one of you, in his brief, said that we should amalgamate the three categories. Could you say a few words about that? You also wish that the amount requested from investors be reduced; how can you justify this request?

In other words, tell us about your administrative concerns in operational terms, so that we can make very specific recommendations.

I was pleased to see that each of you praised the Quebec system. You're right when you say it has to do with the selection process. I think it's the fundamental factor; being able to attract the right people puts us in the position to get the right investments.

I will have two more questions later on. Maybe we could get this schedule photocopied and hand it to everyone here.

Mr. Colin Singer: What was your first question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: What do you wish in terms of administrative process? In practical terms, what would you like to be changed?

Mr. Colin Singer: Can I answer this question?

Mr. Réal Ménard: Of course.

• 1000

Mr. Colin Singer: First, let me go back a little bit. When you develop a plan, you should not start by discussing the number of investors needed according to this or that amount of investment. This is not how the issue should be tackled. You have to start by establishing how much money you are looking for. What is the amount of the funds you are going to look for abroad? When you have answered this question, you are going to be able to start to develop a model which will allow you to reach your objectives. You are not going to start by establishing numbers, because there are many other factors which can have an impact on the number of foreigners you wish to attract.

Mr. Réal Ménard: If I hear what you say correctly, you wish that, when the minister tables each year....

Mr. Colin Singer: Yes, each year.

Mr. Réal Ménard: ...the plan including immigration quotas, she first take into consideration the need for foreign investments, for instance, 2 millions dollars. You are saying that this is where we should start. Do I hear you correctly?

Mr. Colin Singer: In a way, yes. What I mean is that the big picture is now going to change. No such big changes as the ones which could happen in the next six months have been made in the last 28 years, because it would lead to a whole new immigration plan. This would certainly have an impact on the investors program.

Before introducing a regulatory enactment, you have to determine what its purpose is. It is used to implement small changes in a piece of legislation or to reorient it. It's not appropriate to start by establishing the number which is going to be your target.

Mr. Réal Ménard: You are all lawyers, first and foremost. In your practice, you meet people who would like to invest money in Canada. However, because of some administrative problems, we can't manage to have them come here. What can we change in the way the system operates?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Trister, please.

Mr. Ben Trister: We have to treat these people with respect. It is unbelievable. These people are successful people who run businesses, who have capital to bring to Canada, and they're sent back to Pakistan if the wife gives birth. We have to create a system like Quebec has, which is more definite in its timeframe, sticks to its timeframe, has some accountability to it and some rational thought as to what we're going to ask these people to produce. We don't do that. Our government sets numbers in a plan and then shrugs its shoulders when the numbers aren't met. They don't amend the system to correct their mistakes. They shrug their shoulders and say “Well, not enough people are applying.” That's not acceptable.

We have to tell people clearly what it takes to qualify. I'll give you two examples. This relates to Mendel's comment.

Talk about administrative procedures and letting people in early. I have a client who came to Canada, set up a business, invested $350,000, and applied for an extension to his employment authorization after being here one year. This person did everything in Canada that an entrepreneur for permanent residence would have to promise to do and would actually do after coming here, but he's a temporary worker. He leaves Canada on a business trip. He can't apply for his extension in Vegreville, which would have been a rubber stamp. He applies to the Canadian visa office abroad and they say “No, there's no significant benefit to Canada from your business.”

I call up the manager. I say “I cut the ribbon.” That's pretty pathetic; “I cut the ribbon at the business. I'm telling you, there's a warehouse, there are computers, everything's there, materials are there. He invested this money and here's the proof.” She says “I'm sorry, it's not significant enough to Canada.” I'm saying if the guidelines for entrepreneurs are roughly $100,000 investment, creating one job, why would you send somebody home—the guy's stuck in New York for four months waiting for his employment authorization extension, finally is denied that extension twice, when he would pass as a permanent resident doing exactly...investing three times what would be required as an entrepreneur. That's how we treat people.

• 1005

I have another guy who bought a restaurant and a banquet hall. He employs scores of people, and he's in the same situation. We don't treat people well.

The Chairman: Excuse me. Zaifman, would you like to comment on that briefly?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I'd like to answer the question, if I could.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: I want to do the same.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, but before that....

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

When you reply, please direct it to the chair.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I would really appreciate it if you could describe in writing the two cases you mentioned, without naming anybody, and send this document to the committee. When we hear department officials, we'll table this so that they understand that the way things are done currently is not acceptable. The best thing this committee can do is to make managers understand that the way they are doing things, as you describe it, makes no sense. On that note, please proceed.

Mr. Ben Trister: Certainly.

[English]

The Chairman: Who will respond to the question?

Mr. Rotenberg is first.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: In order to continue, instead of going to cases, I want to talk about principles.

In the investor category—if you want to talk about principles—if the object of it is to raise cash, in effect, if you want to put it informally, with selling visas, why do you limit it to businessmen? Why not limit it to people who have cash, who have the money to invest? People inherit. They're sons and daughters of people who have money. Why not? Why do you need to make a businessman criterion?

Why put in a criterion to operate, control, and direct, and then put the word “successfully” on it? No one ever knows when a business has operated successfully; you can't tell from the financial statement. A really good businessman who converts a loss into a lesser loss is operating the business successfully. So why put that subjective criterion into it?

There's another concept that is creating systemic difficulties, and that is the words “significant economic contribution” in the definition of entrepreneur, the definition of a self-employed person.

Those words are meaningless. They're subjective and as definable as “love” and “motherhood” and “country” and “national”, and so on. You can't define it. Even the operation manual of Immigration cannot define significant economic contribution—it says so. Besides, how can a self-employed person make an economic contribution, never mind a significant one?

So the words become a tool to refuse people if you want to and to disregard them if you want to disregard them. Meanwhile, the applicant who has an onus of establishing that he can satisfy visa officers wonders, what the hell do I have to do to satisfy these very vague words?

The Chairman: At this point, I would like to go to Mr. Green for the last 30 seconds, please.

Mr. Mendel Green: In a report I did for the Honourable Sergio Marchi...when I studied the business immigration program, I suggested that business immigrants should be treated in a businesslike way—something profound that no one seemed to understand.

Frankly, Immigration needs more foreign resources abroad—without question. They must be trained to understand the business psyche. They must use common sense and implement the aggressive nature of the Quebec immigration system, which is outstanding. They must not be picayune. They must respect business people when they appear before them and understand that they're trying to come to Canada to create jobs for Canadians and invest in Canada. It's a significant benefit for Canadians, and frankly, we're treating business people like garbage.

I'm telling you it's a systemic problem. It's shocking for me as a lawyer of almost 40 years to say that I have never seen the system in such a bad state. So we need training of immigration officers.

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but again I have to be slightly strict.

Mr. Green, unfortunately the time for this questioning has expired, and I will leave the floor to Mr. Telegdi. There will be an opportunity to give further comment when you answer, and some of the questions may be pursued by other committee members.

Mr. Telegdi.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, gentlemen, for appearing.

When we had our officials before us very recently, I specifically asked whether we talk to the people, the lawyers who are dealing in this business, and perhaps you could utilize your expertise in trying to meet some of the objectives of what we have set out.

Mr. Rotenberg, you mentioned the fact that there is no sounding post. What kind of interaction do you have as an association with the bureaucracy in Citizenship and Immigration?

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Sir, with the greatest of respect, I'll adopt a word that Mendel used: garbage, until today. For the first time the minister has said, okay, I'm going to appoint a kind of committee. We call it an overseas committee and they call it “how to make things work better”.

• 1010

Three or four of us are going up there today at 3 o'clock to tell them what we think. This is the first time. We have semi-annual liaison meetings with the bar that are nonsense. They approve nothing and they're just there—surface responsibility. We used to have an ability to talk to visa posts. People like Mendel and myself, because of our years—because we're old people, like some of the people sitting back there—used to be able to phone them up and talk to people, but not anymore.

The deputy minister told all these officers two or three years ago, “You don't have to talk to lawyers, you shouldn't talk to lawyers, and we don't want you to talk to lawyers”, so as a result we have no communication into the system. That may be a very happy thing for them, because generally speaking, maybe from their point of view we constitute trouble. But we have a positive point of view and they should be able to hear us.

In certain kinds of high-profile cases, such as some of these business cases, they should have an avenue of approach, even if it is by fax. Mr. Green will tell you how many times he's faxed certain posts with no answer. I don't even bother, but Mr. Green will tell you he tries to communicate and cannot. I trust that answers your question.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: As you probably realize, the department missed the targets with CIC in terms of investors and economic migrants, and we are setting the same targets for the coming year.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Missing the targets is only part of it. How much quality are you missing in the target? How many of those who are meeting the target represent real quality people? That's the second part of it. Because of these long line-ups we may assume there are lots of people in the system and we shouldn't have to worry about our mistakes; it's more efficient to just go ahead and process people. The fact is we are losing quality. This is what we're here to tell you.

I use a Chinese idiom for the way we've been looking at immigration in the past year. Ms. Leung may know this: Confucius says that the frog who is at the bottom of a well has a very limited view of the sky. This committee, with the greatest respect, has shown some prescience to try to hear the lawyers and get our viewpoint, because you'll get a better view of the sky. You know what I mean.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Chairman—

The Chairman: Mr. Telegdi, excuse me, but Mr. Trister and Mr. Singer would also like to respond to your question. I'm at the mercy of the committee members to direct their questions too because of the limited time. Would you allow Mr. Trister and Mr. Singer to comment on that question as well?

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Maybe one, because there's another question I want to—

The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Trister, and then we will proceed to the next question.

Mr. Ben Trister: There was a time when the Canadian Bar Association was seen as a processing partner. That was the language used by the department when they came out with Bill C-86. A few of us had the opportunity—I was not one of them—to sit in a room with the department and do a clause-by-clause evaluation of legislation, and it was much better for it.

I have just written the citizenship brief. I can tell you there are fundamental drafting flaws, let alone policy issues, in the citizenship brief that will require amendment, which we could have helped the department with prior to its first reading. The department does not view the Canadian Bar Association as a processing partner any more. They want us at a distance. They want us to be in the same league as the consultants and other representatives that participate in the system.

I alluded before to the fact that we are going forward with serious lobbying efforts, even at our own personal expense, in the name of the association—or so it looks from the votes we've had thus far—because we don't have the voice we should have as lawyers. We are not advocates for our clients in this context; we are advocates for the public, for Canada's interest, just as you are. That's what the Canadian Bar Association does. We have to be allowed to do our job, and the department has not let us do it because it doesn't want to be limited in what it does. It wants to go about rationalizing, making the system as fast and cheap as possible to run, and they don't care who falls off the plate.

Mendel talked about quality and the good people you lose. When we come back to talk to you about the citizenship brief, if we're invited, you'll be shocked at what effect that's going to have on good people everybody would want.

• 1015

The Chairman: Excuse me, Mr. Rotenberg.

Mr. Telegdi, please.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: Could I just add one point to that?

The Chairman: Only if Mr. Telegdi will allow it.

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Very quick.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: They have stopped talking to us. They won't even write to us on behalf of clients in Beijing, Bonn, and Vienna. They say “We don't want you in the system at all. We are going to deal directly with the client and no one else.”

Mr. Andrew Telegdi: Mr. Green, you were going to mention something about citizenship in your initial comments. I take it you have a brief for us, and I hope you will leave it with us.

Mr. Mendel Green: I have included, in this brief on page 31, reference to subsection 6(1) of the Citizenship Act, which requires physical presence of an individual in Canada during the four years out of the immediately preceding five years. That has the effect of imprisoning a business person in Canada. They can't leave Canada if they want to get citizenship. One of the great incentives—

The Chairman: Excuse me, if I may just interrupt, there will be proper opportunity to study the bill when it comes before this committee. You have given us the idea—

Mr. Mendel Green: Yes, it's there.

The Chairman: —so we will not be distracted from our proceedings here today.

Mr. Singer, would you like to comment on that question?

Mr. Colin Singer: Yes, if I may just summarize for the honourable member, the issue we have been trying to raise is there has to be an object intention to allocate more funds to this program. The central theme we have been raising is problems in the system. The problem is that you go out and create numbers. Different members have been asking about numbers and focusing on numbers each year.

You have to first understand that we believe the process has not been properly followed, in that first you set your target levels, but then you must go out and create your objectives. You must implement your objectives and put resources to those objectives. If you are not committed to allocating the dollars necessary to process those numbers, the numbers have no meaning when they are tabled.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Telegdi, for your time.

Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco (Laval West, Lib.): Merci, monsieur président.

Like my colleague across the floor, I'm also very pleased to hear that Quebec is doing something right. I come from Quebec, as you have probably guessed, and know a fair amount about the Quebec investor program, since I've worked on it. But I would like to hear from one of you gentlemen about what Quebec is doing right that the federal government is not doing right.

At the very beginning, Quebec had some very serious problems. The program was not getting off the ground, and then something happened and now we're doing it right. So I'd like to hear from you in very concrete terms what it's doing right.

I would like to make the comment that we will be looking at the immigration law in due time, after second reading. That will probably be in the fall, and it might be a good opportunity for you gentlemen, or someone who represents the Canadian Bar Association, to come back to talk to us about business and investors in a general business background, in terms of immigration. But I'd like to hear an answer to that first question.

The Chairman: Who will take a question? Let's take Mr. Zaifman first, since he's from the west.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: That's right, so I feel perfectly confident to comment on the Quebec system. First is the financing under the Quebec system. Before they had financing, they were not competitive at the $350,000 level. Second is the fact that the financing extended to investors is non-recourse; in other words, the investor is not liable for the loan. The third thing is that they are much more liberal—if I can use that word—

Mr. Réal Ménard: Carefully.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: It's an excellent word. Use it, please.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Madame Folco, control yourself.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: —and reform-minded in dealing with immigrants, not as a block but as individuals. Their selection criteria are significantly less onerous on applicants than the federal system, and they are significantly faster in processing cases.

The tragedy—if I can use that word—is that the investors that are selected to go to the province of Quebec do not reside in the province. If you look at the numbers, you will see that 70% or 80% of the investment flow goes to Quebec under the investor program. I would think no more than 20% of those individuals reside in Quebec. So Quebec is selecting because they're faster, their selection criteria are broader, the financing is now competitive—that's why they get more, and that's why they will get more under this new system.

• 1020

The Chairman: Ms. Folco, which witness...?

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Whoever feels confident to answer, please go ahead.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: If you wanted confidence, maybe I shouldn't have answered.

[Translation]

Mr. Colin Singer: I can add two things.

Mme Raymonde Folco: Go ahead.

Mr. Colin Singer: In Quebec, it's the private sector which is mandated to administer the program. Some investment brokers are responsible for implementing the program. It requires a marketing plan. This is one aspect of the current Quebec program which, we think, is going to be eliminated in the new federal legislation. Yet, marketing is very important to ensure that the immigrant investor program is successful. This is one reason of the success of the Quebec program.

[English]

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I just have one last point, regarding commission payments. Under the Quebec program, the commission payments to finders or consultants or lawyers are significantly higher than they are under the federal program. I would say under the Quebec program commissions can be $30,000 for an individual investor and under the federal program perhaps a maximum of $20,000.

The Chairman: Mr. Green.

Mr. Mendel Green: I want to look forward. Regretfully, the CIC is going to sabotage the efficiency of the Quebec program, because recently they are referring those persons who have been selected and processed by Quebec efficiently and quickly to the background clearance people for checking. And what they're checking is how they got their first dollar 25 years ago. They're now holding up the Quebec program.

This is not routinely known in the immigration bar, but recently three lawyers from Quebec have called our firm for assistance in how to document for the organized crime unit. The CSIS people are becoming auditors now for the immigration process, which previously was working well in the province of Quebec. So I say the future for Quebec now will slip back into the slow lane, like the rest of Canada, because of this new approach by the security people.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Do I have another minute, Mr. Chair?

The Chairman: Yes, please, go ahead, Ms. Folco.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: I'd like to react to something. I think it was you, Mr. Singer, who said this earlier. You talked about the criteria of age, language, and education for immigrants. The minister has already made public her white paper. My understanding of it is that the orientation the government will probably be taking in the bill on immigration and refugees is that one of the important criteria for independent immigrants, all categories, will be the flexibility and the possibility of adapting to the Canadian way of life and getting a job, and so on—more general criteria. These can be very subjective, I'll grant you, and therefore dangerous, but it seems to me we're getting away from these age, language, and education criteria.

Mr. Colin Singer: Honourable member, this is not quite accurate. If I may, I would like to add a little bit of clarity. Part of what you're saying I do agree with.

I have here a copy of “Building on a Strong Foundation for the 21st Century”. This is the document we call the white paper. This is the gist of the white paper proposals. If we check on page 30 of the white paper, there is a paragraph dealing with the section “More Effective Business Programs”. In the middle of that paragraph, it reads:

The government proposes to add a more explicit requirement for significant business experience as well as

—and I emphasize—

education and language skills for entrepreneurs and investor immigrants.

I would also add that to strengthen program integrity, a requirement that applicants establish the origin of their funds would be added.

From a reading of this white paper proposal, those elements are very much at the forefront of CIC's consideration when they implement new regulations or, I should say first, new immigration legislation, complemented by regulation. Those points are of prime importance.

Ms. Raymonde Folco: Thank you very much.

The Chairman: I will now give the floor to Mr. McNally.

As you may know, starting with Ms. Folco, we are now on a five-minute round. Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Ref.): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

• 1025

It seems to me what you're all saying is there are some pretty serious problems with the system that need to be addressed. You focused on a lot of those. We have a lot of information here in front of us and our time is very limited, so before you go, could you just point us to where exactly in your documents we can reference your recommendations later for follow-up?

It also seems to me as though you're saying the Quebec program is more competitive because they see us as one possible destination among many around the world. It seems to me you're saying that CIC, rather than being more competitive, is trying to change the Quebec system to be less competitive than they are.

Mr. Colin Singer: That's very true.

Mr. Grant McNally: That's the way it is, as you see it. I certainly wouldn't disagree with the information you've given us today.

Madame Folco and Mr. Ménard talked about the specifics of the Quebec program and what make it better, and you've given us a fair bit of information on that. What is the next step now to move forward in that area?

The Chairman: Who are you directing the question to?

Mr. Grant McNally: Anybody who wants to answer that.

The Chairman: I'll call on Mr. Green and then Mr. Singer.

Mr. Mendel Green: As opposed to the suggestions in the white paper, perhaps the minister would suggest the ability to know how to count as opposed to speaking English or French would be far more important. Let us use common sense. Quebec goes out into the field and recruits entrepreneurs. I've recently travelled both for the Province of Prince Edward Island and the Province of Ontario, attempting to promote their immigrant investor program. I have been met with the response from immigrant investors, “Why should I go and invest in your funds when the officers come from Quebec to visit our plant?” Do you know that our economic development officers around the world never link up with Immigration and go out to the plants, go out to the business, to see if that individual is a business person? If that individual doesn't have KPMG-quality financial statements, the CIC will say forget it.

It is impossible. I'm saying common business sense. That's all that's needed, and Quebec uses it. Quebec is aggressive, to their credit.

The Chairman: Mr. Singer.

Mr. Colin Singer: To complement my colleague, I personally would like to see—and I would suggest you honourable members should solicit—information that verifies the cost of each hour a visa officer works in bringing in an immigrant investor file to Canada. What is the amount of time spent? That factor is very important in the numbers of dollars that should be committed to bringing in investors to Canada. If we know how much time is spent per file, if we know how much manpower we need, if we know how much money we need to bring in the multimillions of dollars coming to Canada, this is a very important element, and then you go and make your legislation to implement your objectives.

I submit to this committee today that no such statistics exist in that particular framework.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd like to focus on the accountability factor, because you've all mentioned at one point or another the difference between the Quebec system and the federal system, the rest of Canada. What do you perceive to be the biggest accountability difference between the two? Obviously, you're saying there is accountability in Quebec and there's not, at least as much, there.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: The Quebec immigration system just signed an agreement with the Quebec bar. So it's the exact opposite. We're being told to get lost and the Quebec immigration department is saying to its bar, welcome, we want to hear what you have to say.

Don't call us processing partners, but we do have a stake in the system. We do represent clients. That's one of them.

The second thing is that the immigration department in the rest of Canada is using designated visa officers. People with no Canadian citizenship, with no Canadian connection, are making decisions on what constitutes the interest of Canada, a significant economic contribution. I can't understand that at all. I'm entirely lost.

Third, the posts are spending more time on spouses than on business people. These are three things on accountability that are clear to me.

The Chairman: Mr. McNally, Mr. Zaifman would like to add something.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I think the standard I would use is that they should probably treat lawyers slightly worse than they treat members of Parliament. So I invite you to set the standards for yourself on accountability and enforce them. We will follow behind. I know from my own personal experience that it is difficult for members of Parliament to get timely and clear responses on behalf of constituents—forget about lawyers who have a vested interest.

• 1030

So really, I would put the ball back in your court. If you can solve the problem or you can make effective representations, have them listened to, then I would be happy to follow in your wake.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard, please.

Mr. Grant McNally: We share some of the same frustrations.

The Chairman: We have 30 seconds left. Mr. Trister.

Mr. Ben Trister: I just want to say that accountability comes from the top. One of the things that drove us to distraction was that during the flood in Manitoba the government filed a regulatory change from using the CCDO, the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupations, to the NOC. The regulatory impact analysis statement said a handful of people would be affected. In our view, that was a misrepresentation by the department to Parliament. As lawyers it offended us greatly.

We told the government, you're going to knock out 40% of independent immigration. They ignored us because I think they really wanted to do it. I think they wanted a higher level of pool. They don't mind if the numbers are decreased, if that's the trade-off. But they didn't have a public debate. They wiped out—the numbers show 30% are gone. That's not an accident. There are different reasons for it, one of which was the implementation of the NOC. If the minister and the department can get away with that with Parliament, you can imagine what the department thinks it can get away with, with applicants.

The Chairman: On that note, I give the floor to Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I advise you that when I am finished with my questions, I'm going to table a motion of which I give you notice. I'd like to read it now and that it be put to a vote at our next meeting.

I find our witnesses very interesting and very engaging. I believe they have a lot of expertise to share with members of this committee.

I'd like to come back to two of your statements. One of you—I believe it's the first witness—said that business people had to wait three or four years before being interviewed. Did I get that right?

Second, what link is there between all this and the statement by department officials who, when they came to our first meeting, told us, and I quote:

On June 1 of last year, we designated and introduced nine visa offices abroad, with the goal of specializing in business immigration.

All business people have to submit their application in one of these nine offices.

[English]

The Chairman: Is that part of the motion or is that debate on the motion?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, you don't quite follow. I am just chatting informally before tabling my motion. Do you want me to table it right now?

[English]

The Chairman: No, no, just as a matter of procedure—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want you to be happy.

[English]

The Chairman: If you give a notice of motion, then I would like to hear the motion first. I think because we are hearing the witnesses today—

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay, but don't cut the time I can use afterwards. Otherwise, I'll table my motion when my time is up.

[English]

The Chairman: I'll allow question and answer, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Okay, and I will ask questions afterwards.

Given the vast expertise of the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding economic immigration, it is proposed by the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve that a round table be organized with officials responsible for economic immigration and with the witnesses representing the Law Society of Upper Canada, that is Messrs Green, Trister, Rotenberg, Singer and Zaifman.

I want officials, these lawyers and us, members of Parliament, to discuss this issue so that we can really understand the problems.

This is the motion, Mr. Chairman, and I want to have a chance to ask more questions.

Mr. Colin Singer: Can I second that?

[English]

The Chairman: Let me just check with the clerk. What is our official policy on motions? Should it be bilingual?

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Don't start, Mr. Chairman!

[English]

The Chairman: I just wanted to be extra sure, Mr. Ménard.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Not at all, not at all. It's an excellent motion and I want to dedicate it to you, Ms. Folco.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, the notice of motion is received.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: Some very good witnesses, very, very good.

Mr. Chairman, does my time start again at the beginning?

[English]

The Chairman: You have given a notice of motion during the question and answer period. That is a very innovative approach, except that of course that is subtracted from your time allotment nonetheless.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No.

[English]

The Chairman: So you have one minute left.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, no, no.

[English]

The Chairman: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: I, too, have studied law, Mr. Chairman.

What I'd like to understand is the reasons why, according to you, it might take three or four years before somebody is interviewed.

• 1035

[English]

The Chairman: Who will answer the question?

Mr. Green.

Mr. Mendel Green: You've asked for examples since June 1998.

In the brief you have two examples that went through the business post and the actual letters setting out an appointment for May 12, 2000 and June 26, 2000. After the interview, there are then the medical checks and the security checks that are implemented. So you're talking, from start to finish, three to four years. What is the reason? I cannot give you a common-sense reason.

Mr. Colin Singer: I can give a partial reason. Part of the reason has been the decrease in resources spent on this program, considerably, year after year, since 1995.

You were referring before to an incident on which I was going to try to jump in, but it's not appropriate right now.

The issue is, if you hire a lawyer and you feel you are getting a lawyer with x amount of years experience working on your file...if they hire a one-year paralegal to do the work, you would be very upset with the fact that your case might not be handled very properly.

What is happening overseas in all the visa offices now is that the department is going after locally engaged staff. They are putting them into the whole forum of administering our Immigration Act and our regulations. These are very untrained individuals, probably at lower rates of pay than a Canadian-based individual, and they are saying, now we are going to deliver our program. What's happening is—and my colleague has raised instances of legislative problems, challenges in court, a whole series of problems—the delays have increased tremendously.

Corruption is also a problem. When you have locally engaged staff, your costs are lower, you're not meeting your objectives, you have problems in the system, and of course you have headlines in the Globe and Mail about corruption.

[Translation]

Mr. Réal Ménard: You mentioned corruption?

Mr. Colin Singer: Absolutely, it's a fact.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, it's a fact. Don't name the people involved, but give us some examples.

Mr. Colin Singer: Recently, in 1997, in the Damascus embassy, there was a problem when 150,000 Canadian dollars went missing. It happened because it was a local person who was in charge of managing the right of landing fees. It happened over a year. And then, there was a shortfall of the same amount in the system. It was put down, in part, to corruption. I don't have all the details.

My four colleagues can maintain that corruption is not the problem, that it's not the reason for having to wait four years to be interviewed or to get your file finalized. I think it's due to the inadequate financing of the program.

The Chairman: Mr. Ménard.

Mr. Réal Ménard: Here is my last short question. You also mentioned a second concern. You said that immigration officers are not sensitive to the business psyche. What do you mean, exactly?

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Trister.

Mr. Ben Trister: They don't distinguish between business people and other individuals. When you're an immigration officer, you don't get to see only perfect cases, particularly in a situation where you waive the really great cases and a lot of officers are used to seeing bad files. If you get a file for an interview, you wonder why it wasn't waived and you're suspect from the start. So the way you treat people, instead of welcoming them.... The basic psychology in the department is wrong. It is enforcement-minded; it doesn't deal with what's in Canada's best interest. The two cases I mentioned to you before are perfect examples.

I have another very brief example, a guy who came over as an executive from a Chinese company. He set up a Canadian company here, invested $1.5 million of that company's money here, grew the business to the largest producer of its kind in three years, with $11.5 million in sales, and they turned him down.

The Chairman: On that note, I think I have to yield the floor now to Ms. Augustine.

Mr. Colin Singer: I have one point, if I may.

Mr. Réal Ménard: I want to have some information.

The Chairman: With unanimous consent, go ahead.

Mr. Colin Singer: Thank you very much.

You know, it's by chance that I came today. I have another meeting this afternoon. I have prepared a five-page insight into the reasons why the embassy in Soeul, Canada's third largest source of business immigration, has fallen into a quagmire, where delays are exactly approaching three years, as my colleagues have raised in other examples.

I'd like to read a quotation to you that gives an indication of what the program is going to face in the future. This is a letter that was obtained through Access to Information. It's nothing secret. It's from Mr. Stanley Pollin, program manager, Seoul embassy, immigration visa section. He stated in 1997—and we could probably get the source of the information:

There are 1,664 active cases in our inventory, of which 1,130 are not yet paper-screened. Implications of this are that we should project service standards for business applicants of 30-36 months (which, we expect, would effectively kill off the Korean investor and entrepreneur categories, as few medium- and small-sized businessmen (sic) plan that far ahead).

• 1040

He raised these concerns two and a half years ago, and we are partly faced with those problems that continue today.

The Chairman: Ms. Augustine has the floor.

Ms. Jean Augustine (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I also want to thank the legal brains in front of us. I'm sitting here as a member, and I'd ask you to put yourselves in our position, because we have to make some decisions at the end of the day.

We have a proposed immigration investor program slated to begin April 1, 1999. You've come with some really damning news on the way in which the program is operated, the way in which officials operate, and some real difficulties that you see with the program itself. I want to clear the deck with one very subjective kind of question. Do you stand to lose by the changes to the program? As legal people, this is really your line of work. I just want to clear the deck of this first.

Second, I'd like to ask if you see any strengths in the program. If you were sitting on this side of the table, what kinds of suggestions would you be bringing forward? We've heard the negatives, but are there some strengths or some way that this program could be...?

The Chairman: Mr. Green.

Mr. Mendel Green: Let me say that the tougher the program gets and the more impossible it gets, the better it is from an income standpoint for lawyers. So we have only to gain from them lousing up the process. As Canadians, though, we want to see the program work.

With respect to the immigrant investor program proposed for April 1, it is the unanimous view of all the lawyers here from the Canadian Bar Association that the new system should be postponed. Frankly—and I say this with quite a bit of concern—it would be negligent to implement it with what you know now and what the future offers for this new proposed program. I don't think I can make it any simpler.

The Chairman: Mr. Zaifman, would you like to answer the question?

Mr. Zaifman.

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: I'm unencumbered by any sort of official designation, so I can sort of speak my mind. If I were going to write the immigrant investor regulations, I would eliminate financing. I would leave the minimum investment amounts at the current levels with the current net worth requirements. There has been no evidence submitted in the regulatory impact statement that the net worth requirements of the old law are inadequate. I would permit individual provinces to create what I would call provincial window funds. Let the province decide where they want the money to go. I would change the definition of an investor and essentially allow an individual to go as an investor. The only requirement would be that they'd have to certify or verify that the funds were obtained by lawful means.

In other words, you've heard about the administrative problems in processing investors. You've heard about the Quebec system, which has eliminated a lot of those barriers. I'd say make the definition a lot clearer. We should enable certain individuals who have the financial resources to go as investors. Those individuals will create economic benefit, even though they may not have business experience. Those individuals who want to run a business or have identified a business can invest in an individual business. Simplify the definition.

• 1045

It may be unrealistic for us to complain about the delivery program and a lack of resources. I think maybe all government departments have felt that, and maybe Immigration has tightened the purse strings too much. But if you ask me what four things I would do, those are the four things.

I would also limit, to a certain extent, the fees that could be charged to a percentage of the funds invested, so the net investment amount in an eligible business or in a fund is 90% of the investment amount. Limit the fees, the marketing fees, the administration expenses, so we're getting more bang for our buck. That's what I would do.

The Chairman: Mr. Singer.

Mr. Colin Singer: Mr. Chairman, Madam Deputy, I will take a little different approach than my colleague Mr. Zaifman has taken because I do not know what the CIC's intentions are with respect to how many immigrant investors they want. The criteria Mr. Zaifman was referring to, i.e., financing or no financing, a little bit of this and a little bit of that—it's all part of how you will go out and deliver the program. It's all part and parcel of how you will execute your program.

The first step is to come to the table and say, what kind of investor do we want? What kinds of numbers do we want? Do we want high net worth individuals? Do we want high net worth individuals who will only invest $100,000? What is the nature of the process we want? There are many different models. My colleague very well pointed out one model. In the brief for this section, the CBA immigrant investor brief, which I wrote and which you have here today, we have advanced—there are other possible models. Let us not be unrealistic about the fact that there are many ways of meeting your objectives. For example, my colleague, perhaps rightfully, spoke from where he's sitting in Winnipeg—of course, I'm sitting in Quebec and I think we have a great program.

I think perhaps consideration should be given to other models—for example, the Quebec model. For example, when the regulatory enactment was put on the table on March 22, 1997, it did contain proposals that emulated in part the Quebec model, the successful Quebec model. There are reasons that model did not come forward.

My proposal would be, on behalf of CBA section, having canvassed all our members across the country, you have a white paper that is a momentous development. This is a big exercise. I agree with my colleague. Let us delay implementation of a regulatory enactment. We have not yet learned to walk, so we cannot run with a legislative enactment called a regulation.

We must go back to our 50% partner and say, we have worked together on the immigrant investor field, la province de Québec. Let's go at this together and see how we will further our mutual interests and our mutual objectives. Go back and engage in studies and see what is the cost of bringing in those investors to Canada. Go and staff your missions with the proper people, the proper trained people who are coursed in Canada, who are not locally engaged staff who are going to be called upon to verify documentation of which they have absolutely no understanding. When it gets to be too thick, they will put it aside. That file will take four years to get to Canada, until someone from Canada who has the knowledge to review the file will give that person his due day in court or his due day of evaluation.

We go back, we assess what our objectives are, we implement the program, we commit the resources, and we execute the program. If we have problems in the execution, we implement small changes to re-orient ourselves toward those objectives. But nobody here today, in my honest opinion, can honestly say what we should be doing now, because we do not know what the minister's intentions are with respect to this program.

The Chairman: On that note, I yield the floor to Mr. Sekora.

Mr. Lou Sekora (Port Moody—Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, Lib.): Thank you very much. I'm filling in for another member here. From what I'm hearing today, I'm just wondering why...we have probably had witnesses like you here before.

Mr. Green mentioned common sense many times, and I think that's the only way to operate—common sense. There's no other way. I've been a businessman for many years, and I still am. What I'm hearing today is frightening. It looks as if somebody needs a good shake.

I don't know whether it's the bureaucracy that has locked its head or heels in, or whatever it is, but it looks like.... I'm a businessman. I've been in the hotel and restaurant business for many years. If I want some expertise on the hotel or restaurant industry, or whatever it is, I would be going to a guy who has been operating for many years. I wouldn't be going to some school teacher or somebody to find out about the hotel restaurant business.

• 1050

When you said Quebec is working very well, it looks like all of Canada, the rest of the provinces, are not working well. Could you tell me why the premiers and the ministers of all the other provinces are not screaming to our minister saying there is something wrong, let's work together, let's bring all of Canada together?

Mr. Mendel Green: They in fact are screaming. The premier of Prince Edward Island, I'm aware, just wrote the minister and the prime minister as well, complaining about the new system. New Brunswick is in the same position. The Yukon is in the same position. I can't speak for Saskatchewan, but I personally know that there is enormous dissension among the provinces, and they are screaming.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Yes. I know there used to be a lot of investors, $250,000 investors, in British Columbia, but they're gone, and have been gone for a few years.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: It was $350,000.

Mr. Lou Sekora: Whatever it was. The fact is it slowed the economy for many years, but that's nothing new.

I also heard yesterday that if you want to invest $500,000 or better, you must know English. I'll tell you, years ago I guess everybody was an immigrant. I remember my grandfather and grandmother coming—I don't remember it, but the fact is that they came to Canada in 1891, and they certainly didn't know any English whatsoever.

Mr. Mendel Green: Our collective experience is that the overwhelming majority of entrepreneurs and investors do not speak English and/or French and are over the proposed age limit of 45 years. Those are the people who are making the significant economic benefits for Canada.

The other situation that I wanted to address on what you said is that the Canadian Bar Association and the immigration law specialty group of the Law Society of Upper Canada are prepared to volunteer their services to this committee or to the CIC to work hand in hand with them to develop a better program for all Canadians.

We, as Ms. Augustine now knows, gain by more complex rules and regulations, but regretfully, Canadians lose.

The Chairman: On that note, I will give the floor to Mr. Benoit.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.

I think you gentlemen have left very little doubt that you're unhappy with the current system and that you're unhappy with the changes that are being proposed. Mr. Rotenberg said things have never been worse, and that's a pretty definite statement. Mr. Trister said the CIC breaks the law on a regular basis, and that's a pretty serious indictment there, I believe. You said the basic psychology in the department is all wrong.

The Chairman: You did say that?

Mr. Ben Trister: I didn't actually say that. What I said is that they ignore court decisions that run counter to what they do. They don't instruct their visa officers to follow the courts.

The Chairman: As a lawyer, does it mean they have broken the law or not?

Mr. Ben Trister: Yes.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Leon Benoit: That's what was said, I believe, and then—

Mr. Ben Trister: I just put it in more diplomatic terms.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Then, Mr. Singer, you quoted the program manager from Seoul. They're pretty damning statements. Then, Mr. Green, your comments were in the National Post this morning, about the fact that the department doesn't handle the business of immigration in a businesslike way and that they have to rein in unsophisticated, persnickety visa officers who they say don't always follow the rules. Again there's the statement that they don't follow the rules. Later on in that article you said these programs and this investment, which would put Canadians to work, are being held up by immigration processing and lengthy delays.

So the indictment here about the current system is extremely strong. It couldn't be any stronger, I don't think, and yet you think with the proposed changes things will be even worse.

I think all of you agree to that. Is that the case?

Mr. Mendel Green: We are unanimous in your statement, I think.

Mr. Leon Benoit: Mr. Zaifman, are you too?

Mr. Kenneth Zaifman: Yes, I agree with that.

Mr. Leon Benoit: I really haven't heard an awful lot of support for the changes that have been proposed, and I have a real concern that this magnitude of change can be made just through a regulatory change. A change of this magnitude should clearly come through the Parliament of Canada. It shouldn't be made through regulatory change. I think this all points to a need to hold off on these changes and try to build something that will work better to get the investment into the country.

• 1055

The one thing that hasn't been talked about a lot—it has been mentioned by a couple of you—is the other side of this. Part of what makes the system slow, as you say, is the way the system is being operated by the department, but part also has to be the security checks. We have an extremely serious problem in this country with organized crime coming into the country. This is a real threat to national security; it's a real threat to Canadians, and we have to be on guard in that respect.

So I'd like you to comment—and I see Mr. Singer is anxious to comment first—on this aspect and how this could be dealt with maybe better.

The Chairman: Mr. Singer.

Mr. Colin Singer: I'd rather my colleague answer that, but I want to make a very clear point. None of the members here in any way is suggesting that Canadian immigration policy should buckle to any immigrant applicant who is trying to bluster their way into Canada with repeated faxes or who can talk the loudest or the most forceful. Nobody here is trying to say that we advocate blustering into Canada. Absolutely not. We do need program integrity. We need to choose the right people.

I'd like my colleague to address your question.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: I would want to answer immediately in the same way, because we are Canadians and we are proud of what we have, and we don't want organized crime as part of this country. Frankly, my whole set-up is organized to avoid those kinds of people, although I must say it can't always be successful. But the methods of rooting this out are interfering with the introduction of proper and appropriate business people in the sense that if we want to do this, if we want to prevent people...then devote adequate resources to it. They have not.

The Chairman: Mr. Green.

Mr. Mendel Green: Keep out criminals, everyone agrees, but don't turn CSIS and the organized crime unit into accountants who are looking for an accounting of every last dollar. Tax minimization, as you all understand as business people, is a process. In some countries, if they paid their taxes, people would be bad business people. Does that necessarily mean that if we bring them to Canada they're going to cheat the tax department? I say no. Please deal with security checks in the proper ways—everyone agrees—but don't turn these people into accountants. That's what they're doing.

The Chairman: Your time is up, Mr. Benoit. The time belongs to Mr. Ménard, but I think I will request Mr. Ménard to yield the floor to Mr. McKay to give him an opportunity...and I think he will agree.

Mr. McKay.

Mr. Réal Ménard: He's my best friend.

Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): We did a wonderful little tag team last night.

How much time do we have?

The Chairman: Five minutes. You can be innovative, too.

Mr. John McKay: Yes.

Let me cut to the chase here. There's obviously a great deal of hostility between the bar and the department. You used the word “paranoia” many times. I don't know what the department's response would be to the bar as such. Having practised law for 22 years, I have some feel for what the public thinks about the bar, lawyers generally, and we won't go there.

I was just thinking about our budget. One of the little things we slipped into the budget, which nobody really paid too much attention to, was that if an accountant, in filing a tax return, knows or ought to have known that the statement that was being filed was in fact a false statement, there will be an additional liability, aside from criminal liability, on that statement. I'd be interested in your reaction to a similar amendment along those lines with respect to the bar in particular, but immigrant consultants in general, or people who file these applications, whereby if a statement is false or should have been known to be false, there is a liability on the filer.

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: What you're talking about is failure to ask the question that should be asked. I think it's the responsibility of lawyers to ask the questions that should be asked, and I'm not afraid of this.

The one problem I have is that in dealing with immigration consultants and others around the world...section 94 only reaches us Canadians. We have people other than Canadians involved in the immigration process, which I never understood. We had Lloyd Axworthy back in 1973 saying this was an urgent situation.

• 1100

Mr. John McKay: Even with regard to these significant claimants, people are putting $200,000 to $300,000 in here, and they're being filed offshore. Is that correct?

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: It's not being filed offshore, but the people representing them are offshore.

The immigration minister says we're all consultants and we're all on an equal scale, but the minister does not recognize our expertise. As a lawyer—and I've said this to the minister many times—every time I file an application, I fall under section 94, and if I do something wrong, you can get me. Surely, my statement has more weight than that of somebody from Pakistan who's selling newspapers on the corner. But the minister says, sorry, our notion of equality in Canadian life means that I have to treat you all equally. I never understood that.

Mr. John McKay: Okay.

Mr. Mendel Green: Just to pick up on my friend's comments, if your pet dog said that he was an immigration consultant and someone was stupid enough to pay your pet dog some money to represent them, CIC would give that pet dog the same recognition as the immigration law specialists sitting at this table who are certified by the Law Society of Upper Canada. That is the existing state of the processing situation with Immigration Canada. That's a fact of life. There's no issue there.

A voice: We should do that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

The Chairman: Mr. McKay, are you done?

Mr. John McKay: My second question is in another area, and it refers to the department's statement about the shortfall, i.e., that the shortfall was due to a downturn in Asia. Visas were issued. These people are already done. The department has done its job. These people chose not to come for economic reasons. What's your take on that?

Mr. Cecil Rotenberg: There's not the slightest bit of evidence that's other than spin.

The Chairman: Mr. Trister, speak very succinctly, because the next committee is about to meet.

Mr. Ben Trister: Nobody who knows the system took that seriously, and it is yet another example of the spin the department and the minister have put on the program, which misleads and covers up the problems there are in the department and in immigration processing.

That said, I have to address your point about hostility toward the department. I may be animated, but I'm not hostile. I think if you were a civil servant and you were given a certain amount of money to administer a program, and you know that your visa officers very often can't get their decisions right but it costs too much money to have them photocopying affidavits all the time, you'd want to impose a leave requirement too. From their mindset, what they're doing makes sense. It's not their fault. They're good, bright people. Personally, I like them a lot, and I respect them. But Parliament is tying their hands by leaving them with a lack of resources. We take all the money people pay for processing, we shove it into the general treasury, and we leave the immigrants to fend for themselves in a system that's untenable.

The Chairman: On that note, I have to interrupt. In fairness to the next committee, I have to adjourn.

The chair still has a few questions to pose, but I will defer those until the next meeting. The study is ongoing. As you may know, we are studying the overall business immigration program.

Thank you all on behalf of the committee.

The committee is now adjourned.