[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 13, 1995
.1108 
[English]
The Chairman: Order.
Let me begin by thanking Mr. Grubel for coming and spending some time with us. I assume you are aware that we are looking generally into the issue of the economic impact of immigration on Canada, with specific interest in our current immigration policy. We're using the book Diminishing Returns as a starting off point, but you don't need to confine your views or comments to Diminishing Returns.
Being familiar with parliamentary committees, you know the normal routine is for you to talk for 10, 15, or 20 minutes, and then we go around the table and ask questions.
Thanks again for coming.
Mr. Herb Grubel, MP (Capilano - Howe Sound): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's an unusual thing to be sitting on this end. I'm looking forward, with some trepidation, to doing a good job for you.
.1110
I should say at the outset that I'm speaking to you as an economist, someone with a background in the theory and measurement of immigration. The views I will express are not those of the Reform Party.
You know, yourselves, of the difficulty in getting things accepted through caucus, and I'm just one individual here speaking for myself today.
I just want to tell you a little bit about my background. I got started in this interest when I was teaching at the University of Chicago in the 1960s and the brain drain became a big issue. I wrote an article that has been reprinted widely.
That sets the stage, and I will explain in a moment what that basic theory is.
I brought along a couple of my books on the subject, in which I have published articles that essentially took the issue of the brain drain, measured the economic effects of human capital flows across borders, and so on.
I want to start off with a little amusing story. Here's one volume called The Brain Drain. I submitted it to Science, a magazine published by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. It's widely circulated throughout the world. It gives the latest ideas in findings and science. They also have a section on social sciences, so I wrote an article for them on the economics of the brain drain.
I was a young assistant professor on the make, and I was so pleased when I received all these requests for reprints of this article from around the world, until I looked more closely at where they were coming from. They were coming from neurological institutes. They had been indexed, and somebody in Hungary was interested in draining the brain of fluids. It was a word index that called for it, so it was not exactly what I had in mind.
I am quite familiar with the content of this book because half the authors were either my colleagues at one time or another at the university, or have sat in my classes when I was teaching international economics, of which the economics of migration was a lecture of a week or two.
The thing I became well known for in the debate over the brain drain was identified as the internationalist position. It was very ironic to me that during the election campaign I was identified as someone who was against international migration.
Let's assume for a moment that there's no government and the economic activities and other activities of individuals have no effects on the well-being of others, which in economics we call externalities, for which they are not paid, or which they are not charged if they are negative. Just assume that for a moment.
From this we go into a very basic economic proposition. If someone is able to move from country A to country B and in the process voluntarily does so and says that they're better off, then welfare in the world is increased. The question is what the effect is on others.
In the country from which the person is leaving, some income is lost. If you have highly skilled individuals with high income, in fact in a statistical sense the average income of that country goes down. That isn't important. What counts is how much that person contributed to the output of that country and how much the income that person was earning in salary allowed him to claim back of the output he had contributed to that nation's total output.
Economists have the theory that our wages are on average determined by the amount we are contributing to the output of the economy.
To go into this would be taking me too far here, but you can see that if you're a businessman and there are people out there who are being paid $10 and they contribute $11 an hour to your revenue, you'll be going out there and hiring them. If they contribute less than $10, you will not hire them. You will be satisfied only in expanding your business, when in fact the revenue you get from hiring that person equals to what he contributes to your income after paying him his salary. That is the best approximation we can have.
.1115
This means that when these people are leaving developing countries, they take away what they contribute to output, but they also take away, on average, exactly what they claim. The only loss to the people in the country from which they leave is that they have one small less opportunity to trade with someone, and that can be quite important.
By analogy, in the country into which immigrants come, on average they get paid what they contribute. Of course, the famous popularization of this is that immigrants have both hands and mouth. As a result of that, the movement from A to B raises welfare because that one individual is better off and therefore we're all in favour of it.
The issue is that in the real world there are externalities and there is government. Those are, in effect, what all these articles are addressing that are in this book published by C.D. Howe.
How does government enter into it? Government enters into it because on the one hand they collect taxes, and on the other hand governments hand out goodies that are absorbed by the individual. You have to understand here one fundamental truism. Statistically it must be true that the average Canadian pays as much to the government as the average Canadian is absorbing in services from the government. It's got to be that way.
Like all definitions, that doesn't help very much, but it focuses on the fact that around that average are some who have incomes that are above the average. They therefore pay taxes above average. Then there are some who are below, and so on.
Similarly, on the side of the resources absorbed from the government, you will find some are above and some are below. It has turned out that as an empirical question, the immigrants into Canada and the United States on average in the past have had higher incomes, paid higher taxes, and consumed fewer services. Therefore, the rest of the population, which in the absence of any government would not have made any difference in the presence of government, typically in the past as a matter of historic record have contributed to the welfare of those in the country already.
Now I'm coming to some criticism of this. One important aspect of that measurement is education. There is a movement among some economists led by a chap called Jagdish Bhagwati. I have attended his conferences in Bellagio and other places. That person, highly skilled, leaving India, really owes something to his country because he was educated through the taxpayers on average. He would have paid in higher taxes the rest of his life. Yet, when he is reaching the peak of activity, he will get hired by an American or a Canadian university or research institute. Some Indians are very unhappy about it.
.1120
So his proposal is that we, the Canadian government, should become a tax collector for the Government of India and have everyone who has come from India with a higher level of education pay extra taxes, to be sent to India. The Rockefeller Foundation supported him in his research and there are books on the subject.
It's never gone anywhere. I think it is just a dead subject, but that's just to illustrate to you what the problems are.
I have always rejected this view for the following reason. If you have a highly educated person in India, that highly educated person, who is paying above average taxes, also would have claimed above average educational service. As you know, only about 20% or 30% of people in universities here in Canada or in India are from the working class. The rest are from higher-income classes.
As a result of this, in essence, he would have paid more taxes but also would have absorbed higher services. I did not see that mentioned in those studies at all. They take the average of the value of government services consumed when they look at this empirically for recent years.
There's also another way of looking at this education thing. The view is that we have a contract with other generations. In that contract my parents put me in this world, and in so doing took on the obligation to educate me, because I didn't have a choice about whether I wanted to be born. They did it; they have to educate me. In return, when I put children into this world, I take on the responsibility.
Before we had government in the education business, it was clearly inter-generational like this, but now that we have government intervening, we pay our taxes, and it's going to educate our current generation.
If you accept that model, then in effect when that person with a high level of education leaves India and comes to Canada, we have the equivalent of a hand and a mouth. He makes above average contributions to the tax base, but chances are very high that he will also ``burden'' the system, or require above average costs in terms of educational services from the system. He would be a university graduate or a doctor or something and his children or her children....
I'm sorry; I'm back in the old mode where I'm not able to make this gender neutral. I do all my writing gender neutrally now, but it's difficult to do it. It would be much more complicated if I said it each time.
This person would now therefore not make the same kind of conclusion you find in this text, because you don't take into consideration the differences in the demands for services that individuals have.
The second way in which this existence of government activities enters is clearly in the case of welfare and similar claims, but especially pensions. Here we have to distinguish between the historic record on average and the more recent record at the margin.
The generalization I started off with, which has been found throughout the world, is that immigrants, because of the selection criteria, have performed better and therefore have had these characteristics, with those qualifications I've just mentioned, and have made a net contribution to the country in which they arrived. It has to be seen now by breaking down immigrants somewhat more carefully.
The reason stems from a change that has taken place in the post-war years in our attitudes towards immigration. Until the 1960s and 1970s, all of the industrial countries of the world were extremely hard-nosed. They said ``Anybody who wants to come here comes here under our conditions. We determine who is allowed to come to Canada or the United States.''
.1125
As a result of this, we sent our officers around the world and said ``Don't let in anybody who isn't young, healthy, educated and can easily adjust to our society.'' That was what the governments of the industrial countries said. That's what gave us the results that everybody now says are universally in existence.
As you know and have heard here often enough, under Trudeau's regime, we changed from a predominance of our selection criteria to a system where we now have well over one-half of our immigrants not selected by us; let me call them self-selected. They are in the categories of family reunification and refugees.
It is quite clear that by them selecting themselves, we don't have any more control in choosing individuals with characteristics that almost, by definition, assure the outcome I started off with, which is the conventional wisdom I have always lectured about.
If I had to lecture about it today to my students, I would say it is absolutely essential that we look at that again empirically and ask ourselves what the net effects are, in light of the fact that over half of our immigrants are now self-selected.
It's fairly straightforward. You know all of this; you've heard it often enough. If you bring in someone at age 65, that person will make no more contributions to any retirement fund like CPP and will have no earnings that are taxed in order to pay for medicare. But that person, after a few years in Canada, is automatically entitled for the rest of his or her life to those benefits. As a result of this, the story that held true earlier simply will not hold true for those people any more.
The empirical questions we have are: How old are these people now on average? What are their characteristics with respect to health, education, etc., when we bring them in? I have here, from the Department of Immigration, a set of statistics on income. It shows that people who came in the 1980s under family reunification simply have much below the income of average Canadians. This is a marginal group of people. I think what Don DeVoretz has identified in a more systematic way is the fact that this is true.
I believe the problem that you face as a committee and that we face as a country is whether or not we are going to try to have our immigration policy set in such a way that it continues to benefit Canadians on average by insisting on applying our selection criteria. Or will we be dominated, in the effect on Canadians already here, by people who are self-selected and have these characteristics that the government and all the scholars have identified?
In my judgment, that is the most important issue we face. How charitable - how helpful - are we going to be to the rest of the world?
I have just one last word on that. When we become generous on this - and I know Canadians are very generous people - we often believe we will be able to help the developing countries from which many of these individuals come.
However, a point to be considered is that the rate of population growth and the rate of population pressure in countries such as India and the whole Indian subcontinent, China and some parts of Africa are such that there isn't a conceivable amount of immigrants we can take that will make any difference in the welfare of the peoples of those countries.
.1130
The number of additions to the population every day in India is greater than what we can take in a whole year. This is a reality check we should have when we talk about being helpful. It's clear we will help those individuals who do move. Their welfare goes up. But let us not have any illusion that in fact we can change fundamentally, in any meaningful sense, the quality of life of those in developing countries.
I know you want to get at me, but I just have one other point I want to raise. It concerns the most fundamental issue. What I talked about concerned the mix of immigrants. Now I want to talk about the level.
All my life I have accepted the idea that Canada has grown on the basis of immigration. It has served us very well. We are a very rich, very diverse society and I think one of the best societies in the world.
I'm also very much aware of what I have always considered to be an exogenous development, namely the fact that Canadians are not reproducing. Our net reproduction rate is 1.6% and you need 2.1% to keep the population stable.
I'm also aware of the fact that economic growth and the growth of population have the external benefit of creating a climate in a society that is superior to that of one that has either a stable population or a falling population. Therefore I always went along with people saying if we can have immigration such that we have a slow population growth, we are better off than one in which there is decreasing population.
You notice that Don DeVoretz in his book said he thinks we should aim at 0.88% of our population as immigrants. I don't know how he got that precise. The idea is one of essentially two: the optimal size of population and the optimal rate of growth.
Economists are deeply divided over the optimal population question. There's a man called Julian Simon; have you heard of him here? He has written books. I know him well.
When the oil crisis was on, everybody thought we were running out of natural resources. In 1980 he bet with Erlich - you know, the ``population bomb'' guy at Stanford. He said ``Pick ten products you think will be more expensive in the year 1994 than they are now, and if, out of those ten, seven of them are in fact higher in price, I'll pay you $1,000. Otherwise, you pay me $1,000.'' Of course you know what happened. All the prices of commodities, with a few exceptions, have in fact fallen.
He's an optimist. He believes the progress of humankind on this globe is unlimited, and the more there are, the more likely we will have Einsteins - although he's in a bit of disrepute because of the atomic bomb - and Mozarts and everybody else. The more we have, the more likely we will have more exploration of knowledge, which will allow us to have a higher living standard. Not just the world in general, but each individual country is better off the more people they have.
I said ``What if there is standing room only?'', and he said ``We can go into high-rises.''
The Chairman: Excuse me. We have another witness coming at noon. I don't want to be impolite, but....
Mr. Grubel: Okay, this is my last point.
.1135
You can see that when the population is very small in a country, productivity is very low. You also know that when you add people you have the opportunity for exchange and specialization. It keeps productivity going up.
We also know, however, according to my theory, not Julian Simon's, that in the end there is a level of congestion and overcrowding in the world, or in that country, such that productivity is low again. So productivity as a function of the number of people in the country per square mile goes up like this and then goes down like that, until it must reach here. The question is, where are we relative to that maximum point where we have the optimum? We don't really know, empirically.
My last point is this. I think this question should be looked at again, because it was determined by the Economic Council of Canada in the sixties and seventies that 1% would be optimum. I have been in Toronto and Vancouver, and I have seen the problems of crowding and overpopulation and the costs they bring.
That brings me to one specific criticism of one of the papers. You see -
The Chairman: Mr. Grubel -
Mr. Grubel: Yes.
In Vancouver, when someone comes in and builds a house in a suburb, that person is charged the tax rate in that region. All the calculations of the costs and benefits are based on that cost of serving the individual. However, the Mayor of West Vancouver has told me that they have billions and billions of expenditures coming down the pipe in the Greater Vancouver Regional District. The reason for this is that the growing population requires an increase in the size of sewers, water supplies, roads and everything else. The costs are sky-rocketing. How are they going to be paid for? They're going to be paid for by tax increases in regions that are not growing.
So immigrants have an impact on the cost of living for others, which is extremely high, and that's left out of these calculations. It disregards the existence of government, in that sense.
It is not just the visible congestion, the visible problem of overcrowding and pollution. It is also in fact directly measurable in how much, when we reach these stages of economic growth and density, people have these problems.
Thank you very much for your patience.
The Chairman: Thank you very much.
Mr. Assadourian has asked, with the group's permission, if he can go first. He has to leave.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Thank you very much.
Thanks, Mr. Grubel, for coming here. I didn't know you were in Chicago in the 1960s, otherwise I would have had this discussion with you in Chicago. I was there. But as the expression goes, better late than never.
Mr. Grubel: Where were you in Chicago?
Mr. Assadourian: The Chicago Academy of Fine Arts.
We discussed the brain drain a few meetings ago with witnesses. You mentioned that if someone comes to Canada from India, for example, with a PhD or higher education, it doesn't really affect India economically, because after all, if he was there, he was going to demand similar or equal service from the government for what he got.
That may be true for one person, but 20%, or 200 million, of the Indian population today has a PhD or higher education or a science degree. Don't take one person as an example, take 20%. Take them away, bring them to Canada. What impact would that have on Indian society and what impact would that have on Canadian society?
That's the question we have to ask, not picking and choosing one example of one person and one incident. That's one point I want to make.
The other point is that you mentioned pensioners, 65 years of age, who come here and don't contribute. It's as though every immigrant coming here is 65 years old.
If you take every immigrant who comes in and average out their ages, the age might be 30 or 35. So that's way off what's in your presentation, which is that everybody coming in is 65.
.1140
If I come here at the age of 18 or 20, and my father is 65, what am I going to do - not come? But when you take the average age of a family coming to Canada, that may be 25 or 30 years old. So they contribute, as a family, to society, rather than your example of someone who is 65 years of age.
Mr. Grubel: Can I have one moment for this? I'll be quick in my answers.
Mr. Assadourian: I have one more question.
You mentioned taxing Indian-educated people coming here. A few years ago, if you remember, there was something called the U.S.S.R. People used to pay tax to the state, especially the Jewish emigrants leaving the country, based on whether you had a science degree - you had to pay 10,000 roubles - or a master's degree - you had to pay 25,000 roubles - as compensation for the education received in that country.
Is that a form of what you're proposing? Can you clarify that?
Finally, what would be an acceptable level of immigration for you, personally?
The Chairman: I think there are four points.
Mr. Grubel: Yes, I have them down.
First, on the subject of non-marginal immigration, all of your statements are absolutely correct, but the question is, what's the relevance? We never had any more than a trickle of brain-drain people. The argument was that we were losing the Einsteins for India.
My answer was that if an Indian scientist works at Berkeley and develops a cure for cancer, India can claim him as a Nobel prize winner, Berkeley can, and all the benefits will accrue to the people of India. So it's true enough - if we had 200 million. But where are they going to go, and who's going to have them?
The second minor point is that, as you know, India has an academic proletariat. People are totally underemployed. They have these wonderful education levels and can't find jobs. So I think the whole world benefits from these types of immigration.
There isn't enough time, obviously. It takes several hours to talk about these things. But I've thought that through.
As to the average age, you're absolutely correct. Nevertheless - and I am not recommending this, sir, and all of you - I only want to point out that we as a society in Canada have a choice. That is, if we can agree to adopt a policy to reduce the number of family units, family members, self-selected immigrants and refugees, then the benefits we get from immigration would be greater. We have to make a choice as to whether we're going to be hard-nosed and say that as a society, we have the right, if not the duty, to ask ourselves ``What's in it for us?'' as we make our policy.
One of the variables broached by Don DeVoretz and others and in policy changes in Australia and elsewhere is how exactly, in practice, we are going to administer the immigration of self-selected people. Your statement is absolutely correct, but you have to remember that there is the average and the marginal. There is a choice between having made a decision to let in so many people.... We have a deliberate choice on what composition they have in terms of levels of education, health, age and so on.
What I hear from my constituents, if I can become a little bit political, is that they would very much like us to work on that margin. They would like us to have a good look at and re-examine the merit - for Canadians, their children and their grandchildren - of letting in people who are self-selected in as large a number as we do relative to those we have selected because they benefit themselves and their children.
On individual countries imposing emigration taxes on the basis of their citizens having absorbed a free education, by all means. Who am I to tell what the Government of India or the Government of Russia wants to do? Do it.
.1145
The issue I discussed has been bandied around a lot and has a lot of support from UNCTAD and others, that we, our RCMP, become the enforcement agent for the treasury of Russia. I'm opposed to that. We have no recourse in knowing, when they tell us to tax this guy until he can baulk no more, whether or not this is being done for legitimate reasons. It's just one legal and moral mess.
As far as levels of immigration are concerned, I don't know; I haven't made up my mind. And if you know me, this is not evasive. I'm a scholar. I look at evidence.
I'm only suggesting that the figure we picked was picked in the 1960s - it could have been the 1970s - by the Economic Council of Canada. Things have changed dramatically. We have so much mobility. Our cities that are desirable places for living, where most of these people are going, are getting crowded and getting all the problems that come along with big cities. Vancouver is quickly losing its edge as one of the greatest places to live in the world - primarily by immigration from the rest of Canada, not immigration from outside.
You must remember that if we are letting in large numbers of immigrants from the rest of the world, most of whom like to live in desirable places such as Toronto and Vancouver, we are making it more difficult and much more costly for those who already live there and other Canadians who wish to move to these places.
I don't know what the answer is, but we should look at it.
Basically, it is a false proposition to look at the square miles in Canada or the persons per square mile in Canada and say that we are a totally underpopulated country. You know that. We all have driven up north and seen why, at certain times of the year, nobody really would find that an attractive place to live, given the alternatives, or why it is so thinly populated and people are leaving.
The Chairman: You are over time.
Mr. Assadourian: Can I make a quick observation? On the last point about Vancouver you said that people living in the suburbs there are putting in high demand for infrastructure, sewers and what have you. I want to remind you, I live in Toronto, and Toronto hasn't had the infrastructure program for the last 25 years. They don't have to any more. The infrastructure is already paid for, being used, and people are expanding outside Toronto, creating jobs for the local population. You didn't mention the benefit of getting jobs there.
As well, those people coming in are paying very dearly for infrastructure programs that will last for 50 or 60 years. What we have in Toronto now was built 50 years ago. It is all paid for, 10 times over, through municipal taxes.
So you are not telling me we should get credit, because it's all paid for. That credit is going to the other part, because we are all in this together, something called Canada - large cities, small cities, we all come together to make this country a much better place. That's how I see it. I don't see it municipality by municipality or group by group - the whole thing.
I was in Taiwan last December -
The Chairman: I'll politely ask you to stop.
Mr. Assadourian: Just one point.
China spent $5 billion U.S. for infrastructure, because they have no infrastructure. Here we have that built already.
Mr. Grubel: With all due respect to your arts background, what you are now holding forth on...you just have no idea about social policy choices.
The point is, we have paid off these infrastructures. We're entitled to be richer by not having to pay for them again. What the federal government is asking people in my riding to do - because they want more immigrants from the rest of the world - is instead of paying lower taxes, because they have paid for the infrastructure, now paying higher taxes.
Now, they're telling me they don't want it.
Mr. Assadourian: It must not be my riding, anyway.
The Chairman: I think we'll go a little past noon. We'll start with seven minutes and see where that takes us.
Mr. Nunez, go ahead.
.1150
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez (Bourassa): It's not usual to be putting questions to a member. Before starting your presentation, you were very careful to point out that these were your personal views, but I haven't seen any difference between your views and those of your party. Now, about a question that has already been put, your party's policy, at one point, was to decrease the number of immigrants by 100,000 a year. Do you share that objective?
[English]
Mr. Grubel: Do we have an official position on this?
Mr. Hanger (Calgary Northeast): Last year it was 150,000.
Mr. Grubel: It was 150,000, which is approximately 0.75% or 0.8% of the population, which is what the independent scholar, consultant to the Department of Immigration, has pointed out.
Mr. Mayfield (Cariboo - Chilcotin): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't think it's fair to ask the witness about party policy when he has come here as an individual witness to express his own opinions. He's not here to defend party policy.
The Chairman: I don't know that it's a point of order, but it is -
Mr. Mayfield: I think it's an improper question. That's actually what I'm saying.
The Chairman: How be it if the witness doesn't want to answer it, don't answer it?
Mr. Grubel: I just asked my colleague who is specialized in this, since I'm in the finance committee, to help me with this. A grassroots body of our party has overwhelmingly, I remember now, suggested that the level be set at 150,000. I'm raising the question whether or not maybe this committee can at some point start a hearing process in which they ask experts what might be the optimum level of population in Canada.
The Chairman: We have been doing that as part of our work.
Mr. Grubel: I see. I'm sorry. I didn't know that.
The Chairman: Just on that point, I have one Reform member saying we shouldn't talk Reform policy with you and yet you seem to be willing to talk Reform policy. I'm leaving the decision up to you. If you don't want to talk Reform policy, then just say.
Mr. Grubel: I appreciate that.
Mr. Mayfield: It just occurred to me that when he has to turn to someone else to ask the answer to the question, that's not really -
The Chairman: Right.
So if you don't want to answer it -
Mr. Grubel: Thank you. I will take advantage of that offer, but feel free to talk to me about anything. I'm happy to defend myself.
Mr. Nunez: I appreciate that, but I will not ask a question about your party's policy.
[Translation]
You know, there are many categories of immigrants. Which one do you privilege? You mentioned before that the federal government's role was minimal in the area of family reunification or refugee acceptance. Don't you think that there's a selection?
When Canada's representatives go into the refugee camps, they don't accept just anyone. They take into consideration the same criteria as for independent immigrants. It's the young ones, the healthiest, the most educated, anyway... In the past, most refugee came from those camps.
When you apply the family reunification policy, when you chose a young couple, it's because the woman is young and healthy. It's not arbitrary. We don't let just anyone in.
What's your opinion on that?
[English]
Mr. Grubel: I have a completely open mind on this. I told you what the theory is. The theory is of course neutral on many of these issues. It's an empirical question.
What I have in front of me is the relative performance of selected independent and family-class immigrants in the labour market. I remember reading last night - I can't find it right now - a breakdown according to refugees and certainly families. These were convention refugees.
.1155
This is on page 3 of this document, ``Average 1988 Employment Earnings by Class''. The independents had on average about $34,000 a year income in 1988 when the Canadian average was $22,000. Assisted relatives had only about $18,000. The family-class immigrants had about $14,000. Convention refugees had only $12,000. Those are the numbers I go by.
Now, you may be correct in your assertion, but you have to deal yourself in making those assertions with the empirical evidence available. I did not produce it; the government did.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: No, but we did hear from a university professor like you, who came before us, Professor Akbari, who told us that immigrants consumed fewer services and paid more income taxes than Canadian-born citizens after a few years. Are you questioning that? I don't have the figures in front of me and I stand to be corrected, but I think the researcher could give me something like that.
[English]
Mr. Grubel: With all due respect, I addressed this question. Can I repeat it? The point is that historically this has been the case and it is still true for lumping all immigrants together. But now you go this thought experiment, and the calculation, and you say of recent immigrants, let us now look at those we have selected as a government and those who are self-selected. When you look at this, you get the statistics I have just given to you. I'm not making up these statistics.
The people of Canada have a right to know that this is the fact, that certain classes of immigrants that we have admitted in large numbers in recent years have had not the effect that the average has had in the post-war years, but the opposite. That is what these statistics show, what Don DeVoretz is showing, and what generally the academic world is agreeing on.
Mr. Nunez: Do I have the time to...?
The Chairman: Sure.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: About Canada's international obligations, you know that Canada has signed the Geneva Convention on Refugees and as a signatory country it has the obligation - I said the obligation - to accept a certain number of immigrants. Now, if we consider only the economic aspects of immigration, we should take in fewer refugees. So what do you think of Canada's international obligation to accept refugees each year?
[English]
Mr. Grubel: I believe this is an obligation we should adhere to. The problem is, again, self-selection versus selection by our government agents.
You have mentioned that a lot of refugees are now being brought in, a high proportion, by our agents going out and picking from all the eligible refugees those numbers that we feel we have a moral obligation to take. We select the ones that have the highest probability of succeeding because they are young, healthy, etc. The problem in recent years has been that there has also been a large number of self-selected refugee immigrants. They are the ones that stop up all the toilets in the airplanes from east Asia to Canada, because identity documents have been destroyed. These people are saying, ``I am Mr. X, I am a refugee''. Then we have the problem you are all very familiar with, and about which you've heard here.
I think the policy option we have is to change this mix of those that we select among refugees and those that are self-selected. I think we should have a good look at this as a country.
[Translation]
Mr. Nunez: I don't think there's any self-selection of refugees because even if they come knocking at our door, they have to go before the Immigration Board to be granted refugee status. They can only stay here if the decision is favourable. That's not self-selection.
[English]
Mr. Grubel: Well, it is certainly self-selection as to who gets across the border. They were not picked by your government's agents, the Quebec government agents, to say we want that person. That person decided to come here, by whatever means, land here and say he is a refugee.
.1200
You know very well, and you've heard testimony about this, the process is such that these individuals very often can extend their stay here while they're a burden on society until the hearings are complete. Periodically we get huge backlogs on making a final decision. And then, periodically, we have amnesty and they're allowed to stay.
I would challenge, as an empirical proposition, that the extent to which we have input in the average quality of individuals who arrive on their own and those we have preselected by going to camp is different, for obvious reasons.
Again, it's an empirical question. If you have evidence on this, you can show it to me. I would like to put it into my big bag so when I talk to people about it I will say the right thing.
The Chairman: Mr. Mayfield.
Mr. Mayfield: Thank you very much.
I was wondering, in listening to your presentation, if you have any information or insight into perhaps some of the independent value of immigration. For example, I'm aware that perhaps in our international image, interrelations with other nations, peacekeeping, for example, is not altogether altruistic, it's a way of maintaining our place in the world community. With regard to accepting refugees, cooperation with other national agencies and the international market, what do you see as the value to Canada of that kind of cooperation?
Mr. Grubel: If I'd had more time I'd like to have raised the issue about youth immigration and whether it's really possible. I've been at conferences where people have said individuals are so resourceful there is no way in which we can keep them out if we create a vacuum. Let's assume we are really such that our population is decreasing. The living standard is extremely high and living standards and population are extremely high in the rest of the world. They can always find their way in and it may not be possible to close the borders. I think the United States is facing this problem now, in California. You know, people only have to get across the border once and then disappear.
Many countries, Germany, for example, are having a natural rate of population growth that is negative. They are being overwhelmed by individuals who are coming in.
The Germans have a slightly different system in that any time you go to Germany, you have to register, and vagrants can be picked up if they don't have a job or a domicile they can prove. As a result of this, they can have open borders but control immigration this way. But even they are being overwhelmed.
So it may very well be that it is in our interest, instead of being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants that are self-selected, we relieve the pressure and make the vacuum we have here that will attract them, smaller than it would be otherwise. I agree with you that this is an argument that should be put into the discussion about optimum levels of population.
Mr. Mayfield: Are there benefits? For example, Canada sits at the G-7 conference, not because it's an economic powerhouse right now; there has to be other reasons for that. Are there other benefits that we get in accepting refugees besides what the refugee or that person brings to the country themselves?
Mr. Grubel: I never got around to talking about externalities. A lot of speculation goes on and this is where I think the article by my colleague, Steve Globerman, is very important. He tried to look at the data.
Again, it's an empirical question. It is possible that by having lots of immigrants from China we therefore have more trade with China than we would have otherwise, because of those social and linguistic connections. You can't prove it. Theoretically I can see where it exists, but show it to me.
.1205
Mr. Mayfield: I'm not sure that's the answer I was expecting, but you did answer the question I asked. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grubel: We should look for it. In theory it should be there, but if it exists, the data we have now show it is so small that it cannot be measured.
Mr. Hanger: I'm interested in this whole process of selection. I've heard through the department just recently that they're talking about changing the selection criteria.
Mr. Grubel: For whom, independent immigrants?
Mr. Hanger: Independent as well as possibly extending that, changing the point system and the like.
We've listened to experts from the Province of Quebec who have analysed their immigration performance. The two main criteria they would look at, as pointed out by one professor, are adaptability and language. Would you agree that the rest of the country should be looking at those criteria? If you don't agree, what do you think would be the best measure, if you will?
Mr. Grubel: In this paper published by the Fraser Institute, I've put into the theoretical analysis the idea that when we make a cost-benefit analysis about whether it is good for certain groups of people to be brought in, we should have in the analysis the cost of adjustment, which is related to what you have been saying.
It's quite clear that if people need to learn English when they arrive here, they are more costly to absorb into the mainstream than those who do not. That may be a cost that can readily be wiped out by the higher qualities they have in other aspects. Again, it's an empirical question.
A big survey that the government thinks is very reliable shows that in 1984 the immigrants whose official language was French had incomes of only $20,000 for independents and only $10,000 for family class immigrants. Among English-speaking immigrants, however, it was $32,000 for independents and about $12,000 for family class.
Then there is bilingual, and then there is a class of neither. It is really startling to see how much lower the income is for both independents and families for those who have neither. Not only do they have problems adjusting, but the chances are that their success later on will be less after three years than that of others. But we don't have enough data to see what happens to the next generation and so on.
A very disturbing thing is happening in the United States. I don't know whether you've heard the name Borjas, but he is an economist at the University of California in San Diego, the best economist in the economics of immigration, and he has found something very disturbing in the United States.
Some of these immigrants, especially the illegal ones, not only have, like those here, below average incomes, but the next generation and the third generation also have considerably below average incomes. It's a complete puzzle to him and to people who have studied this why that would be the case. Apparently they have had a tendency to go and join the economic underclass in the United States.
Mr. Hanger: I'm curious. With the information that one professor from a university in Montreal reflected on, language wasn't the number one evaluation for them, but rather adaptability - how quickly they can change and even learn the language, I guess. That was the set criterion.
.1210
I think they have an unusually high selection of independent class immigrants. When you look at their performance, that seems to be a key thing to them, and the language isn't always the barrier.
Mr. Grubel: The problem is how to measure this.
Mr. Hanger: Well, that's a good question. What do you say?
Mr. Grubel: That's if you're interested in the empirical question. I can understand this as a general theoretical proposition, but now you have to test it.
Mr. Hanger: I see.
Mr. Grubel: The only way you can actually test it is to have proxies, because you can't look at people and say ``He's very adaptable''. What you would probably have as criteria to stand as a proxy for adaptability are age and education, so you're back to the old ones. Right?
Mr. Hanger: Okay.
Mr. Grubel: If you're young and you're already literate or highly educated, you're more likely to be able to learn the new language than if you're old and have low education. So I think it comes back to the old criteria, and it's just putting it in a slightly different way.
Mr. Hanger: So the selection criteria you would use to assess in the independent category, then, really are no different from what we in Canada have done in the past. There should be no real reason to change anything that we're doing in that class or category.
Mr. Grubel: I think we're the envy of the Americans. Borjas always says ``Look at what the Canadians have done. We in the United States should go the same way''. I think we're the envy of countries that are now moving our way.
The biggest thing you people should look at is how many people to let in and the composition. If you decide there will be fewer family immigrants, perhaps we should approach that by developing a point system for them as well.
What I've heard from some of my constituents, and I heard this on the radio the other day as well; somebody has articulated it.... This is extreme, but it should be put into the pot for your consideration. Anyone who wishes to come to Canada and cannot live the rest of his or her life without parents and siblings need not apply. There are other places to go. We have the option, as a country, to say that. We have enough people we can select who are prepared to say ``I am willing to come to Canada and I know I do not have the right to bring my family.''
What that means, of course, is they get the high incomes they expect. They can send lots and lots of money to India or Germany or wherever it is, or they can go and visit and help their parents, and so on. But they cannot bring them in.
This is being suggested, possibly as an extreme measure, but nevertheless it is one of the many options. There are many grades between where we are now and the extreme I have just mentioned that can change the mix of those we want to bring in under this class.
The Chairman: I'd like to briefly raise two points. We only have about three minutes remaining.
DeVoretz recommended a 1:1 ratio between economic class and family class. His basic argument was if we go down to, say, MIT and attract a fellow who might be from Hong Kong and bring him to Canada, that gentleman wants to know he can go back a couple of years later to his native country and maybe bring over a wife or his parents. Part of competing for the highest quality immigrants is allowing them to sponsor their families.
Secondly, if you accept just 0.88% of the population, my understanding is Canada's population is about 28 million, so that would translate into 246,000 immigrants. Those two factors seem to be, as far as I can tell, an endorsement of the current Canadian immigration policy.
Mr. Grubel: The current immigration policy, I think, was set by the paper by the Economic Council, after wide consultation, and it's 1%.
The Chairman: Well, the actual levels are below 1%.
Mr. Grubel: Yes. Nevertheless, we have to talk about targets. I think you should consider in your policy recommendation the fact that often they're not met for a variety of reasons. But if you want to talk about the ideal, our goal, what we want to do, you ought to ask whether it's 1%, 0.8% or whatever. That's the issue.
.1215
I think you have to see DeVoretz's number, as I believe it is a very significant shift. I know him very well. We had offices next to each other.
The Chairman: From 1% to 0.88% you see a shift.
Mr. Grubel: From 1% to 0.88% I see a significant shift. The idea that 1% is not any more a number that is written in stone and to be accepted forever by an academic who specializes in this, I think is very significant.
He has opened up the debate on whether it's 0.88%, 0.89% or 0.6%. I don't know what it is, but it is one of the most fundamental issues and I think the exercise of the Economic Council of Canada that took place should be repeated. It should be repeated in light of the experience we have with certain cities becoming almost unmanageably large, with congestion, pollution, and everything else, and in light of the tendency that Canadians want to move there and their places are being taken by outside immigrants. The idea that the immigrants would come and settle the sparsely populated parts of the world is not taking place.
The Chairman: Just anecdotally, he had a very different view of immigration's effects on Vancouver. He felt to satisfy the needs of British Columbia, we should have a number much higher than 0.88%.
Mr. Grubel: Yes, and we agree to disagree on that. This is where science doesn't really have an answer.
If you want to get into this detail for just a second, I dispute the idea that prosperity in Vancouver is caused by immigrants. It's sure enough, but at what cost in terms of those who are already there? Also, we know that the vast majority of the immigrants who have given that economic boom to Vancouver are in fact immigrants from within Canada.
You had one second point about the family.
The Chairman: Yes, the ratio of 1:1.
Mr. Grubel: Again, you need to first have a model on what they are doing and why we have that. You then have to look at the actual events and make judgment, because there are no real hard-nosed things on it. It's almost ideological; it's almost a matter of you looking at things that involve your vision of what is an ideal world. That enters sooner or later into this discussion. That's what makes it very difficult for me as an economist to pick a number.
All I can say is that these are the criteria we should take into consideration. He made an empirical judgment. I do not know that he has any basis for it or what the basis is, because I've never seen it.
This is a thought experiment. I'm not recommending this. I have to be careful on this. It's a thought experiment that if tomorrow we passed a law saying we will take in only people whom we have selected and at most they can bring in a spouse later and their children, by what number would the pool of qualified immigrants whom we would like to have decrease? What will be the decrease in the average quality of the pool that results from such a law?
He makes the judgment, and it is very significant. I make the judgment that as I look at eastern Europe where the pool is very large, that decrease would be insignificant.
The Chairman: Even at that, when you say we'll let them bring in their spouses and their kids, now the only people we're excluding are grandparents under your thought experiment.
Mr. Grubel: I mean underage children, not brothers, sisters, grandparents, and parents. There would be none of that chain development that I was looking at that multiplies it.
The Chairman: I guess I've said enough. My understanding of the current rules is that it is virtually only children, spouses and parents. That's it. You get a few points if you're somebody's brother, but you still have to qualify.
.1220
Mr. Grubel: If you wish to look in a more scholarly fashion, then you would want to raise questions with the office, if they ever come here, about the data. For example, the government he has in his longitudinal thing are obsolete because we already have changed some of these rules. In the 1980s it wasn't as you just described. Some of the effects you are measuring may in fact be due to that.
One of the problems is the world is too bloody complicated to really make good empirical judgments. Put on top of that what we would like to see our society look like.
I am glad that you are having a good investigation of this. I don't know it will be possible ever to satisfy everyone. I am almost sure it won't be.
The issue is what Canadians believe, what Canadians want, and how to get their voices.
I find this appalling, but also very important for your committee. I sat the other day on a consultation at the Centre for Management Studies here. There is a huge difference on views on social policy reform, Axworthy's committee, on what they heard from the people they asked as witnesses. At the same time, they didn't exercise...which had, according to their testimony, never been done before. They simultaneously had opinion research undertaken on the same key questions.
I just got a copy of this from the deputy minister. It is fascinating.
There is a vast difference in the opinions expressed by a scientifically stratified sample of Canadians on key issues. The equivalent here would be level of composition, family unification, and so on, versus what they were being told by the special interest groups or groups that are representing particular viewpoints and background to that committee.
I warn you, I would suggest to you that if you are going to go after these questions, quite possibly if there is any money at all, see whether you find a similar difference. It's of profound importance, in my judgment. If we, as politicians, want to do the best for our country, we want to be responsive to our country, our people, our constituents, we ought to be sure that the people who come to these committees in fact represent broad representative samples of the average Canadian.
The Chairman: Thank you for that advice.
Just in closing, I want again to thank you for coming. I know there was an element of risk in appearing in front of your political competitors.
On a personal level, I want to say thanks very much for your input. I know we found your evidence very interesting. It will be useful in our report.
Mr. Grubel: Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for giving me this opportunity. I hope things like this can happen again.
The Chairman: With the group's permission, I just wondered if we can decide on when we need to finish. I would suggest maybe 1:20 p.m.
Mr. Hanger: I'll be out of here by 1 p.m.
Mr. Mayfield: I have to leave now, sir. I am sorry. I deeply regret that. I am very interested in what the witnesses have to say, but I must leave right now.
The Chairman: I'll stay until 1:20 p.m.
What time do you have to leave?
Mr. Mayfield: If I can return, I shall.
The Chairman: All right.
Let me begin by thanking Mr. Buron and Mr. Langlais. They are from the Quebec Association of Immigration Lawyers. We are now changing gears and going back to the topic of the issue of regulation of consultants.
.1225
Gentlemen, I apologize for the delay in our starting time. I can stay until 2 p.m., so we'll make sure you get every opportunity to make your case.
Mr. Hugues Langlais (Lawyer, L'Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a summary of my brief here, if it's of any interest. It's in French, though.
The Chairman: French is okay.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlais: First of all, I'd like to thank the sub-committee for giving us this opportunity to come before you and state a problem of concern to us. I don't know if you know about our association. Maybe so; maybe not. I will simply summarize its history.
The association Mr. Buron and myself belong to as members of its executive has been in existence for five years already and represents the majority - yes, I would say the majority to avoid any confusion - of lawyers practicing law in the area of immigration in Quebec. We represent some 150 lawyers, the majority of whom are in the Montreal area. The rest are to be found in different regions of Quebec, like Sherbrooke and Ottawa-Hull.
As you're concerned with the question of immigration, you can understand that the greatest concentration of immigrants of all categories is found in the Montreal area.
Over these last few years, as member of the association's executive, I've been responsible for looking closely at the question of immigration consultants and making representations to the decision-makers and government authorities. During those years, I've drawn up what I call my ``yellow list'' with the names of those consultants referred to me for different reasons whether good or bad. In short, all the names of practicing consultants were brought to my attention.
We're here today because your sub-committee is looking at the question of immigration consultants, which is of great concern for our association insofar as it has to do with the protection of the public at large and that is a fundamental question for lawyers in general.
I know that the clock is running and I wouldn't want to test the adage that it's no use reasoning with a hungry man. So I'll be brief and just present the situation.
First of all, I would like to draw the sub-committee's attention to the fact that there are most probably immigration consultants who are very competent and who can do excellent work. Unfortunately, they're not the ones we're told about. The ones we do hear about - and I'll get back to this a little later - are usually mentioned in the same breath as fraud, incompetence and exploitation of foreigners. These are also people who, to all practical intents and purposes, have no specific training to work in that area of expertise.
.1230
What is the most fundamental and the most dramatic, in our opinion, is the absence of professional responsibility for their actions as well as the absence of requirements to account for the sums of money entrusted to them.
If I may, I will begin with examples of fraud. I have provided you with the first example as an appendix to my document. It is an ad which was addressed to several businesses which are members of "TROC Canada" on the possibility these people have of providing services in return for ``TROC'' or barter points instead of money.
For example, as a lawyer, I could provide services as part of that organization, charge fees and instead of receiving dollars, I would receive barter units which I could use to buy furniture or consult a psychiatrist, if that were necessary. It seems that it is always necessary for lawyers! That is what these barter units are all about. They are equivalent to dollars, in a different form.
As you can see, this ad dates back to 1993. In passing, the company P&C.I. is still around and is listed in the yellow pages of the Montreal phone book. It is now located on Sherbrooke Street in Montreal.
So this business offers potential employers the possibility of issuing work contracts according to Quebec requirements, certificates and job offer validations; in exchange, these employers commit to ensuring that the employee will accept 50% of his payment in money and 50% in barter units.
These barter units are not, however, dollars; that poses a serious problem, because in the Province of Quebec all remuneration must be in dollars or in something that can be converted to dollars under the terms of section 39 and subsequent sections of the Act Respecting Labour Standards. Anyone who does not adhere to that directly contravenes the Act Respecting labour Standards, which is, for you information an act concerning public order.
Here is another example that clearly shows that lawyers are not necessarily immune to fraud. It is the case of a lawyer who had been disbarred for having defrauded immigrants and who, shortly after being disbarred, moved abroad and continued to work not as a lawyer, but as an immigration consultant.
This is a person who is very up on regulations and laws in Canada and who knows very well that the best way to allude them is to withdraw completely.
It is also important to know that when these people act as consultants, they generally do so under cover of a company. In that area, the Immigration Act is of no help to us. Now, there is a section in the Civil Code on the possibility of lifting the corporate veil, or seeking out the people responsible, but this new section is difficult to enforce. When consultants commit fraud, it is always possible to launch court proceedings against shareholders or administrators, but proof is relatively difficult to establish.
Other cases which have been brought to our attention are cases of incompetence. I'm going to give you a short example; you will appreciate the scope of it. It is a story of a claimant who, following a negative decision from the IRB, was told by a consultant to whom he was introduced: ``I am going to appeal the decision before the Federal Court on your behalf.''
Obviously, after checking with the clerk of the Federal Court, they realized that the file had never been introduced there. In addition, there's an affidavit attesting to conversations that the claimant had with the consultant where the consultant is said to have clearly told him not to notify immigration authorities of his change of address, but instead to give them the consultant's address and phone numbers.
.1235
Obviously, when he filed his claim, the conditions of his entry into Canada stated his obligation to notify immigration authorities with 48 hours of any change of address, not his consultant's address. Not having done so, he contravened his order, a warrant was issued for his arrest and he was deported from Canada without any other recourse.
It is interesting to note that despite the fact that this case was brought to the attention of the Barreau du Québec and that a formal complaint was lodged, more than a year went by between the denunciation of the case and the lodging of the complaint. The Barreau has recourse to pursue people who illegally practice as lawyers. When more than a year has gone by since the commission of the offence, it is no longer possible to take criminal action against that person.
In the case I have just mentioned to you, the consultant had a business card and letterhead which mentioned ``Immigration, Legal and Investment Services''. A foreigner who sees an ad or a business card like that cannot possibly know whether the person is a lawyer or not.
Among the other cases that arise, there are cases of exploitation and these are perhaps less obvious. Let's say that each time a consultant acts as an intermediary between the potential immigrant and the department, whether it be federal or provincial - as far as Quebec is concerned - , this consultant helps prepare various documents and often acts as legal counsel as defined by the Bar Act. In this respect, I would like to point out that acting as legal counsel and being entitled to prepare a reasoning that challenges the elements of the act and the particular facts set out in it, is the exclusive prerogative of the lawyer. As is the legal advice which follows.
Keep in mind that not only lawyers are capable of reasoning; several people are also capable of doing it. However, only the lawyer is legally responsible for the reasoning he prepares and the advice or opinion he renders.
That is why we have to take out at least $600,000 in liability insurance, in Quebec, to cover situations where we may have given a person or a client, whoever he may be, legally unsound advice or bad legal instruction. In that instance, the client can be compensated through the Barreau du Quebec's compensation fund.
These cases of exploitation are found in the majority of files covering claimants, sponsorship and entrepreneurs. Because of the changes proposed in Bill C-44 concerning Canadian equivalences of crimes committed abroad, we will be called upon to intervene more often and probably to discourage potential immigrants from coming to this country.
Something else that must be pointed out is that immigrants are completely dependent on a person they feel is in the best position to present their case or influence political authority.
.1240
I may have the opportunity to come back to the issue of training, but I would like to point out that one of the members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, after his defeat in the last election, opened an immigration consultant's office in the riding office he had when he was a member of Parliament and with the same telepohone number. That's no secret. It was Mr. Fernand Jourdenais, whom you probably know, and this ad here couldn't have been clearer.
I will read a passage from it:
- Should you or someone else come to me, or require assistance in dealing with the proper
authorities in the area of immigration, do not hesitate to use my services.
Something else that has also been drawn to our attention is what I hesitate to call honorariums. Instead, let's talk about fees immigrants are charged. I recently heard about someone who charged $6,000 U.S. to fill out forms, without guaranteeing that they would actually be filled out. Generally, 50% of the amount charged is required at the meeting and the other 50% when residency is obtained. There is also a verbal commitment to reimburse the money paid should the application be rejected. But for that, the consultants still have to be in the picture!
In some cases or in most cases, they go as far as promising results. That is done here, but primarily abroad. So in exchange for $6,000 they promise that you will get you residency, regardless of your status, regardless of the fact that you may have committed a crime or you may be inelligible for medical or other reasons, you will be promised residency.
As a lawyer, when we are faced with this type of situation, we must report to the Barreau du Québec, our professional corporation, and if a complaint is lodged, we have to sent in the fees charged to ensure that they were in fact fair and reasonable, taking into account the work done. If conciliation fails, there is a mechanism for arbiration whereby the honorarium can be reduced to the amount equivalent to the work carried out or to the nature of the value of the work carried out.
So as I mentioned, there is no guarantee the money will be reimbursed, regardless of the amount. There is no trust account for consultants as there is for lawyers.
As regards exploitation, the most nuanced ways can be found in recruitment methods. Generally, this takes place abroad where local intermediaries attempt to drum up business. Interpreters or other people hand out ads and take people to large city hotels in exchange for money. Once there, immigration consultants promise them everything, including residency. They make a big speech with the Canadian flag on one side and a picture of the Prime Minsiter on the other, to add general credibility to the process, in order to attract as many people as possible and to get as much money as possible out of them.
Another problem we have encountered is the absence of training and responsibility. I mention training when I talked about the member of Parliament who had opened his office, but generally, the absence of traininig refers to people who may have been public servants at Immigration, who have some knowledge in a few areas but who are not ncessarily aware of all the steps. They may also be lawyers who have been disbarred.
.1245
In that case, they must know the act or we suppose that at least they know the Immigration Act and other acts, to avoid having to face the law. In many of these situations, they're simply people who speak the language in which the recruiting is done. They are often interpreters who have no knowledge whatsoever of the Immigration Act. The only advantage they have is that they speak one of the Official languages of Canada and the language in the country of origin, in order to draw in the clients, or simply have the papers filled out or fill them out themselves.
In addition, there are issues of civil liability which we feel are rather serious. Think about the situation of the sponsor when sponsorship contracts are signed. Do they know? Have future immigrants been apprised of the scope of sponsorship contracts? Has someone been a position to explain it to them? When they are called upon to participate in arranged mariages - because I think you're all aware that that exists - have they been told that there's a secondary market for that type of thing?
Prices vary. I don't think it would be exaggerated to estimate that a marriage cost $5,000, because I heard that somewhere. Do we know who is organizing those marriages or who recommends them, or who participates in them in one way or another? Do they know the consequences, in civil law, of marriages arranged that way and all the responsibilities that rest with both spouses?
I am mentioning this for those who may know the issue, but family heritage is a reality that is only omnipresent in Quebec, and I think that there are equivalents in Ontario. The Ontario Family Act is another Act that set up a specific heritage as regards marriage. So these are responsibilties that come with marriage, and this is not something that can be undertaken lightly.
In addition, there are employment contracts. You know that in this respect, Quebec has specific rules, that it makes sponsors sign agreements for financial reasons. So there are obligations that flow from this contract, and if these obligations have not been explained, there is a problem.
Another problem we've identified concerns certified or validated jobs. ``TROC Canada'' is an example. Job offers are made, but the extent of the job offers is never explained. If residency is not granted, does the employer have any obligations toward the potential immigrant? Does the employer have any recourse? What is the nature of such a contract? How is it formulated? There are difficulties with regard to the entrepreneur class, a class which exists at the federal and provincial levels.
There are different ways of acquiring assets in a business, and obviously, when that arises, people don't necessarily call upon a lawyer to come in and explain the consequences, in civil terms, of acquiring assets or shares in a business as well as the mandatory formalities under the Civil Code. As regards investors, will the consultant take the time to explain the fiscal consequences of investments that are made? Our experience shows that this is not the case.
Something else consultants lack is professional secrecy. The Federal Court recognized that when a claimant uses the services of lawyer to better defend or promote his interests, in the words of Justice Noel, the claimant is entitled to the privilege of professional secrecy and in this case, notes taken to prepare claim forms are the very essence of sollicitor-client privilege. In our opinion, that touches upon all of the immigration formalities. As soon as the person call upon a lawyer, he or she is protected by professional secrecy.
That is an overview of the problems we've identified. I forgot to mention - and I hope that this will make you laugh more than anything else - that I also have with me a catalogue of women to marry, if you're interested.
.1250
I also have requests from Belgium and France concerning practices that are in current use in these countries where immigration consultants are located, and we are being asked for our views.
This brief overview of the problems that we've encountered inevitably leads us to review the existing legislation, or rather the absence of legislation or regulations in this area. As you know, paragraph 114(1)v) of the Immigration Act allows the federal legislator to permit the issuing of licenses to people who may appear before an adjudicator, the determination division or the appeals division, but who are not members of the Bar of any province.
However, that section has existed for several years now, and the federal legislator has never felt the need to enforce it.
The association is immensely concerned with the increasing number of legal procedures involved in this process. How is it that there are no regulations to monitor these consultants? This issue worries us greatly.
In addition, the penalties stated in sections 94, 95 and 96 of the Immigration Act are not, in our view, repressive enough to make it possible to control, seize, monitor or dissuade dishonest consultants.
In addition, the Criminal Code has possibilities... Here, I would invite the members of this Sub-Committee to monitor the news, because in the next few days there will be legal action brought against an immigration consultant in the Montreal region, for fraud totalling $10 million U.S. and involving between 7,000 and 8,000 cases where people were applying for permanent residency. Charges will be laid soon, and quickly passed on to the members of the RCMP responsible for conducting the investigation.
Obviously, you can well imagine that the consultant, feeling the heat, skipped town leaving behind only the keys to his office. He had no assets making it impossible to obtain any reimbursement.
I also learned that preparations were underway, as regards this same file, to issue an international warrant for his arrest. But obviously, the measures are illusory as long as he can't be traced.
This consultant should be charged under subsection 380(1) of the Criminal Code, which states:
- 380(1) Everyone who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a
false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether
ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security.
- This is the charge that we would like to be laid.
According to police officers who are responsible for laying charges with respect to section 380, this is very difficult to prove.
[English]
The Chairman: I wonder if I can interject. Mr. Hanger has to leave at 1 p.m.
Mr. Langlais: I have about five minutes left to go.
The Chairman: Maybe we can allow Mr. Hanger to ask his questions, and then we could come back, Mr. Nunez. Is that fair?
.1255
Mr. Hanger: Thank you.
How many consultants are there, in the province of Quebec, for instance, and if you have knowledge beyond that, in the country?
Mr. Langlais: As to the province of Quebec, I haven't made the actual count. I have here a copy of the yellow pages for the Montreal area. You have the whole list of all those who are acting as consultants. I didn't care to add them up.
As to the number of consultants in the country, I don't have the slightest idea.
Mr. Hanger: I have received complaints in my office, of course, about the ease, or the lack of competence, if you will, on the part of lawyers who have handled immigration cases, but I really had no complaints about any of the consultants. That is not to say that there aren't some out there. I know there are.
You spent the majority of your time speaking about consultants as apart from lawyers, but maybe including some disbarred lawyers in that category.
This whole area of regulation is going to be something significant, in my way of thinking, on how a consultant is going to operate in the field. Right at the present time I find there's a reluctance to enforce anything, whether it be in the Immigration Act, or policies and regulations outside the Immigration Act, in this whole field of immigration.
So in regard to consultants, if they're going to be part and parcel of a more regulated group, so to speak, how would you suggest that we enforce anything, whether it be against a lawyer or a consultant?
Mr. Langlais: I was reaching that point. I was about to reach that conclusion before the question was raised.
How can we regulate a consultant? I personally feel, as does the association we represent, that consultants should come under professional laws of each and every province.
If, for instance, I need an immigration consultant on an immigration file, I will have to advise my client as to the costs that are related to this consultant. Then I'm in a position to control the costs to the client. That's first.
Second, as a professional hiring a consultant, I therefore become responsible, under the Act respecting the Barreau du Québec, for the acts made by the consultant. This is my obligation as a professional lawyer. These regulations already exist. We don't need to create a new set of rules. I believe the same rules would apply to all other law societies in Canada.
How do I regulate consultants who work outside the country? By forcing them to work under a lawyer registered with the provincial bar. That's the way I'm going to get hold of them. It becomes my responsibility as a lawyer registered in a province or territory to make sure that the consultant I'm hiring is competent to do the job, and I will have to disclose this information to my potential client.
Now, if the consultant cannot do the proper job, who is at the back? The lawyer. And I have no interest in being at the back.
Mr. Hanger: This is another question I had. You mentioned overseas, and some of the concerns expressed to you.
I don't know if this advertisement was one that was run overseas, but I have some in my office that are literally guarantees of whatever you want. Not just consultants but also lawyers are behind some of these.
How are you going to regulate what goes on like that overseas? It's very difficult. It's not Canada.
Mr. Langlais: The first aspect of that question, Mr. Hanger, is of course we need a complaint. If there is no complaint whatsoever, there's no way to regulate, be it consultants or be it lawyers.
.1300
The first thing is probably to make some kind of advertisement, or put something in various pamphlets distributed by the department, to say that if you act with the assistance of a third party, be it a lawyer or a consultant, and you're not satisfied, here's the complaint mechanism, and you can file a complaint with such-and-such an organization. It would be possible then to recuperate all those who are practising overseas, if I may say so.
Mr. Hanger: How can you affect the work of someone overseas? You can't. They're not living in Canada.
Mr. Langlais: Unless they are registered with the Quebec bar or any provincial bar. Then they come under the Canadian legislation and they can be attacked and sued for professional misconduct under the provincial rules.
Mr. Denis Buron (Lawyer, L'Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration): If I may step in to potentially complement that, I think the big difference is that when you are in front of a lawyer who unfortunately would have malpractised or have defrauded anybody, there is recourse. It's possible to complain about him and it's possible to eventually have that person disbarred. It is possible to recuperate the money through insurance, even from out of the country. It is at least technically possible, although it is necessarily very difficult.
When you are facing a counsel who is not a lawyer and who is not a member of any bar, then there is no possibility whatsoever of having any complaint followed up; there is no possibility whatsoever of getting any money back; there is no possibility whatsoever of even stopping that person from acting either fraudulently or making any misrepresentation or collecting money without doing any work. These are maybe the main categories of complaints.
The main difference is that we have a system right now that allows people to act completely outside of any scheme of law - they can basically do whatever they want - while we have another category of people who are professionals and who are subject to some control.
I do hope the different law societies and bars of the country will go on to check the activities of those people. I think it is their responsibility in that regard. But there is no control whatsoever on non-members of the bar, or counsel as such.
In my personal opinion, if lawyers act wrongfully they should face discipline, and I think that's very important. But there is no discipline for others.
Mr. Hanger: I can appreciate what you're saying, although I find it very difficult to understand how we regulate outside of the country. I guess this is one point that is probably going to be open to some discussion and debate.
I gather from your presentation that you're moving in the direction that lawyers should control it all.
Mr. Langlais: The word ``control'' is probably a bit strong. What we'd like to do, of course, is make sure that lawyers will have an exclusive right under the Immigration Act, the simple reason being to give protection to the immigrant public. We feel there are too many problems involved already with consultants.
I step further and say that if you try to regulate consultants, you will have to put up a scheme of rules and probably a professional exam, and so on, to regulate them. This is going to be very costly - that's one thing - and I suppose everyone is aware of public expenditures.
You already have in place a set of rules in each and every province that provides for regulation of some professionals. If you include these consultants under the professional laws of each and every province, you regulate the consultants by doing so, without any cost. There's no cost whatsoever in this process because the laws and the rules are already there. The cost, if there is any, is going to be a moral one for each and every lawyer to make sure the consultant is working properly. That's the cost to it.
So in answer to your question, yes, there is a control asked, but with the objective of public protection, basically.
.1305
We go as far as saying the following. We don't want to do just paperwork for the sake of doing paperwork. We're ready to accept that someone may apply for residency himself. If he's incapable and doesn't understand the wording of the forms, he can go to a non-profit organization or a recognized governmental organization.
What's the problem with someone who is claiming refugee status or who is applying for residence going to the Conseil canadien pour les réfugiés, Mr. Matas's group? I don't see any problem there. I have confidence in Mr. Matas's group.
I am almost certain this type of fraud would not appear in the CCR without jeopardizing the overall image of the CCR. So basically they would regulate themselves. The non-profit organizations would regulate themselves.
Mr. Hanger: I see what you're getting at. I don't know if I necessarily agree that they fall under that kind of a structure. The Canadian Council for Refugees is an entity I have found rather difficult to understand, apart from it being a lobby group much like your group. You fall into the same category, in a way. Yours might be a little broader. But that's my view.
I haven't yet heard the factual evidence of the abuse from a witness. Sure, you gave me some examples. Everybody can talk about the examples. There are examples of criminal acts right through the entire country in everything, and one of the things we're talking about is fraud, which falls under criminality. Incompetency, of course, is a lack of training. Those are the two points you cite. But I don't see the big picture as being all that abusive. Sure, there's abuse in everything, but is it really so abusive?
Mr. Langlais: We believe that one immigrant who has been abused is sufficient to raise a question.
Now, when I cite the example for which there will be an accusation - and I would urge you to keep up, as I think you do, with this case, because it's coming up - the fraud we're talking about is $10 million U.S.
Mr. Hanger: Right.
Mr. Langlais: This is major fraud.
Mr. Hanger: Of course it's major.
Mr. Langlais: It's for 7,000 to 8,000 files, 7,000 to 8,000 potential immigrants. Is that too many? Can we as a society accept the fact that people go around the country defrauding others or go overseas to defraud others?
Now, we all have to think about the image here. There's an issue here of the image of Canada.
Mr. Buron: I think what we have is only the tip of the iceberg. You have to be very aware that what we can report to you are the cases brought to our attention, mostly because we then have to try to fix things at the last second or we have to try to help people who are desperate and who do not necessarily want to press any charges. They want to emigrate. That's their goal. Their goal is not to have somebody paying for it or whatever. It's not even necessarily to get their money back. They want to emigrate. They want to be well-served. They want to be legally served. So what we have is the tip of the iceberg.
The few people, mostly from outside Canada, who have been able to realize they have been had in different ways and who are still trying to maintain their objective of getting into Canada legally - and they insist on doing it legally - want that to be done properly. Instead of being caught up with some abuses or with fraud - we can put different terminology on it - they decide to insist and they decide to pursue their ambition and take any possible legal means to get to their objective. How many others were maybe ready to do everything legally or not? How may others tried and will try again, will be defrauded again and again, and will maybe get our embassies and representatives stuck with I don't know how many piles of files that may accumulate there? How many others will never come to our attention?
.1310
Mr. Hanger: I just...my concluding statement, Mr. Chairman, and then I have to go.
I appreciate these gentlemen coming forward. I think they do offer a different perspective.
But human beings are always looking for ways around things, so you're always going to have abuse of one kind of another. Otherwise, you fellows wouldn't be here; you wouldn't be employed as lawyers. That is what makes the world go round, unfortunately.
The Chairman: We wouldn't have MPs, either.
Mr. Hanger: Exactly.
The system is open to abuse, and regulation isn't necessarily always the way to get rid of it. Sometimes, drawing from the source of funds, money is about as sure as anything. There's a lot of money in this whole area of immigration. You can regulate it to death and put it under different agencies or authorities and really be no further ahead than you were before. The abuse will still take place because you can't regulate everyone. I'm looking beyond just sticking it within an authority; in this case, the bar association. I would like to see more evidence of the bigger picture.
There may be an opportunity for you to testify again. I don't know.
This isn't going to be terminated at the end of the month, I assume.
The Chairman: No, but it's difficult to do a scientific survey of abuse. The abusers don't come and report it.
Mr. Hanger: There's a lot of talk about it, and there are some examples, granted.
Mr. Buron: Maybe what should be considered in these matters is not so much correcting the abuse we have to look for, but preventing it. What we are suggesting is not so much regulation of immigration consultants, but using any actual regulation and control there is through bar associations and law societies in such a way that the whole area is safer and better for everybody. I think that's the way our position should be looked at.
The Chairman: We've heard from lawyers from Ontario as well as British Columbia, and they're not recommending we abolish the paralegals. Their view is it should not be solely the domain of lawyers. They feel there is a large body of consultants who have integrity and skills and are doing a good job. Often they are ex-employees.
Their view seems to be that we should set up a professional organization, open to lawyers and non-lawyers, that would be self-regulating. It would get its authority from the law, but would allow non-lawyers to participate based on certain criteria. It would also be self-financing.
Can I get your comments on that?
Mr. Buron: I have difficulty, personally, believing such a system could finance itself. I think the cost of regulating a new body of professionals, whatever it might be called, would be terrible, whether it is undertaken by the provinces or the federal government. Again, we have to consider the potential problem of who will pay for it. Will it be the provinces or the federal government?
I think that in itself is a question so important that it's better to look at other possibilities. It's better to look at using the existing organization and schemes of protection and try to protect the public with the existing system through the bar associations, which are very well equipped. It's already in their laws everywhere -
The Chairman: The law societies.
Mr. Buron: Yes. It's already in their mandates to protect the public and take action against malpractice; people who give wrong legal advice or exaggerate in their legal actions. It's very easy for those organizations to continue and to extend their specialization in that regard at no cost. I think that's a very important factor.
.1315
Why create a problem to solve a problem? Why not use a solution that exists and will be reflected, if there is any reflection, in the fees every lawyer in the country has to pay?
The Chairman: Because there's a cost involved in throwing all those good consultants who aren't lawyers out of business, both for them and for the immigrant community.
Mr. Buron: In some cases it would be a loss. In some cases they should certainly be retained by the system somehow to try to use their competence, first of all because it is true some of them are very competent, and try to let them continue their good work when there is good work to be done. But I don't think we should create a new system completely out of what is existing. I don't think it's appropriate to act that way. Rather, as my colleague has mentioned, we should put them under the surveillance of lawyers, directly or indirectly, so they can be controlled and their practice somehow approved or checked for abuse.
The Chairman: Is there anything you want to add?
Mr. Langlais: No, everything has been said. We firmly believe there are good consultants and there are bad consultants. Whenever you have to regulate somehow, obviously those who are good have to pay for those who are bad. The principle has always been the same over the years. We don't want the subcommittee to believe that as lawyers we do not pose problems when we serve people.
The Chairman: Right. We don't believe that.
Mr. Langlais: I know you don't. But there is also a mechanism that provides for the public to make complaints if we don't render services that are satisfactory. There is already a set of rules out there that can be used to control consultants.
The Chairman: Let me change the subject. Another opinion floating around is that the federal government really has no business looking into this area and it's really provincial jurisdiction to regulate professional services. Constitutionally, anything we might try will be extremely limited to maybe only appearances before the IRB, and that will solve only 10% of the problem at the most. The federal government doesn't have the power to regulate the person in the office who's charging $10,000 to give advice on how to fill out a form or get your wife over from wherever. I wonder what your views are on the constitutional question.
Mr. Langlais: That's exactly why we're not suggesting the federal government regulate the practice of the immigration consultants. We do not think it's appropriate. In fact, we're suggesting it be left to the provinces as it is. But why does the Immigration Act at this moment allow immigration consultants to operate if it is somehow an invasion of provincial jurisdiction? It is allowed already, so maybe it should be removed.
Maybe only lawyers should be allowed to practice in that field of law, like most legal practice that is reserved for lawyers. I think that's the way it should be done. So the question is not to invade provincial jurisdiction, but to let it fully apply. Let the provinces fully exercise their jurisdiction.
They have a problem right now. For instance, when the Quebec bar wants to act against a consultant for potential invasion of legal practice - let me call it that for lack of better words - it has a problem, because it can say the Quebec laws do not allow anybody other than lawyers to practise law, but the federal act allows consultants in federal matters. So is it malpractice? Is it, as I said, invasion of legal practice or not, because the federal government has allowed it at least in appearance?
So maybe it should be clearer, to say the least. Maybe it should define exactly what is allowed and what is not allowed. I think this should be reserved for legal practitioners; the people who know the law. The Immigration Act is not an easy law to apply. I don't think it should be left to anybody to decide to put a sign on his or her door and say ``I am a consultant, consult me''.
The Chairman: Right.
To finish off, if you don't mind, I'll allow the researcher, who is a lawyer as well, to ask you some questions.
Ms Margaret Young (Committee Researcher): Thank you.
We don't have your whole brief in English, but we have one sheet on which your recommendations were summarized for us.
.1320
I've numbered the four recommendations you have made and it seems to me there's an apparent contradiction between numbers two and four. Recommendation two says that the Immigration Act should not allow any kind of representation on immigration - I presume that means any immigration matter - unless the person is a lawyer. Recommendation four says that consultants should act under the professional responsibility of a lawyer.
Which is it? Should they be required to be lawyers in order to give immigration advice, or should they be acting under....
Mr. Langlais: I haven't had a chance to finish my presentation and explain that point.
Basically, we're looking at an amendment to the Immigration Act to recognize as a matter of fact that only lawyers can represent any potential applicant, be it for a simple residence application, a refugee case, or in the appeal section of the Refugee Board.
Until this is implemented we would say that at this moment, and for an interim period of whatever time is necessary, a consultant would be obliged to act under the professional responsibility of lawyers. That would be the interim position at this point.
Ms Young: In recommendation three, you make reference to a particular rule under Quebec's Immigration Act with regard to representation for the Bureau de révision de l'immigration. I'm not familiar with the bureau and I'm not familiar with the rule. Could you tell us what this concerns?
Mr. Langlais: The Immigration Review Board, as it's probably called in English, is a board that has been set up under the Quebec Immigration Act to review, generally speaking, all sponsorship that has been refused and all certificats de sélection that have been refused as well. As you are aware, this is a process by which immigrant applicants are first selected by Quebec. Quebec issues a certificat de sélection and there are various criteria, but the person has a right of appeal before the Immigration Review Board in Montreal.
Section 31 of this act specifically provides that no one can appear before the board unless the person is a lawyer, that is, a paid representative. There is a possibility of having a non-profit organization, a non-governmental organization, appear on your behalf before the board, but it has to be free, and a declaration to that effect has to be made before the board that you're representing someone free of charge.
If you want to be represented by a lawyer, which is your choice, you can appear with a lawyer and it is accepted that the lawyer will be paid by either the legal aid service or the applicant himself.
The Chairman: Can they get legal aid in Quebec for the IRB?
Mr. Langlais: Yes.
The Chairman: Is there any talk of changing that?
Mr. Langlais: At this point, we don't have any indication that it will be changed. Mind you, a large discretionary power will be given to legal aid office managers to withdraw. But it's too vague at this point to be able to look at the consequences of this reform that is taking place now in Quebec.
Mr. Buron: You may be aware that a bill has been presented recently to reform legal aid in Quebec. The implications of that are far from clear where immigration matters are concerned.
It seems that it wouldn't change anything as far as coverage is considered, but the practical impact is very difficult to evaluate at this time. It's far from certain whether the bill as presented will be adopted anyway.
Ms Young: You mentioned paragraph 114(1)(v) of the Immigration Act in passing. I wasn't sure where that fit in with your scheme, or if it did. You said it hadn't been implemented, and that's certainly true. But as you know, that section talks about possible licensing under a prescribed authority. That doesn't seem to fit in with your regulations.
.1325
Were you in fact saying that we should move beyond that? You're not talking about a prescribed authority - or would the prescribed authority be the governing bodies of lawyers across the country?
This is a very technical point, but I wasn't sure what point you were making on this.
Mr. Langlais: The point I was raising with section 114 is the fact that we have an article in the Immigration Act at this point that has been there for three or four years, to my knowledge, and never been implemented.
What went wrong? Why wasn't it implemented? Because it wasn't implemented, there is a lack of rules governing consultants altogether and counsel as provided for in the Immigration Act. Because there is a lack of rules, we say either we implement it...and if we do implement it, it provides for the autorité habilitée, according to the French version I have. We feel the provincial authorities should be in the situation to provide the set of rules required.
We go one step further in saying that all consultants should come under the bar act, and all lawyers as well.
Ms Young: That leads into my final question. You're saying that the provincial authorities should be the licensing body and they presumably would turn to their law societies. But from the federal perspective, that poses a problem, because the provinces have been very unwilling to act.
The one I'm most familiar with is Ontario, which studied it at great length and in the end failed to agree that there was particularly any problem with immigration consultants that required a licensing structure.
From the federal perspective, if the provinces don't act, what can be done - or what should be done? I appreciate when you say that you're not recommending a federal bureaucracy, but if the provinces - and I would be interested in hearing if you know anything about the Quebec government's view on this - have no interest in acting, or will only act with significant compensation for doing so, then does the committee just throw up its hands and say that nothing can be done?
Mr. Langlais: There's one aspect of your question regarding compensation that I don't want to get involved in, if you don't mind, because I really don't know how -
Ms Young: No, I was really just as much saying that one province in particular has said, sure, we'll do this; you give us the money to do it and we'll regulate on your behalf, in effect.
Mr. Langlais: Okay. The basic difference, if I may say so, at this point, is that in Ontario they have to administer a federal act. There is no provincial immigration act. Their relationship is a provincial body interfering with a federal act, whereas in the province of Quebec we have an act under the accord that has been signed.
Quebec has the privilege of selecting its immigrants, as you know. Within this act, there's no provision for consultants. Nevertheless, consultants have emerged and are there as intermediaries between the Quebec provincial government and the immigrants. So the Quebec government has an interest in regulating consultants. It never did. Why? Because the lobby of consultants was very, very strong.
Nevertheless, they regulated consultants in such a way that consultants cannot attend interviews. Consultants may not participate in any form of discussion with between the government and the provincial immigrant. There is a set of administrative rules set out in one chapter. It's published only in French, but for your interest, it's chapter 10 of the Guide des procédures de sélection.
There a clear distinction is made between, on the one hand, consultants and any other group related to them, and on the other hand, legal advisers, who are the lawyers and notaries - not a notary public as we seldom refer to in common law provinces, but a notary under the Quebec provincial legislature. There is a clear set of rules for both of them.
.1330
As a lawyer, I'm on the legal counsel side, and I have a right of access to the files of my clients. I don't have any problem. I can go with them during the interviews. As a consultant, I couldn't go. So if I were to decide to quit law and open up a consulting firm, I could not do the same things under the Quebec act.
Ms Young: Thank you.
The Chairman: So that I understand, is this your position or is it the official position of the Quebec Bar?
Mr. Langlais: No, the Quebec bar will be presenting to you on I think June 22.
The Chairman: The clerk has told me we're hearing from the Canadian Bar Association, which is presenting on behalf of all of the provinces.
Mr. Langlais: But Quebec, most probably?
The Chairman: Well, I would have thought too.
A voice: The Barreau du Québec is presenting.
The Chairman: Okay.
Thanks very much, gentlemen, for your presentation.
Mr. Buron: The answer to your question would be that we are not representing the Quebec bar's position; we're presenting our association's position.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for coming. I apologize for the late start and the fact that some people had to leave. Those who weren't here will review the transcripts. Your testimony will be part of the mix that helps us make a decision and a series of recommendations. Thanks very much.
Mr. Langlais: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Buron: Thank you.
The Chairman: This meeting is adjourned.