Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kurland, I am going to focus on your testimony for four reasons. This is not only because you come from the beautiful city of Vancouver, as I do, and because you are a lawyer, as I am, and that on your website
there is a very strong statement of integrity that I am going to read. This is a lawyer who makes his money from clients, he says on his website: “For individuals and families seeking to immigrate to Canada: We believe most applicants may not require legal assistance when there is no apparent medical, criminal, or security issue....” Then he tells people to go to the Immigration Canada website.
As a member of your profession, I thank you for that strong statement.
The fourth reason I want to focus, though, is because you've said some really interesting things. So did you, Mr. Kydd, but others will focus on you.
You have demonstrated a real enthusiasm about the program, both in print and today. You said it was a dream; it's employer-driven. In print in past months you've mentioned that persons now have a wider range than ever of categories within which to apply. You've even said those who will receive refunds and have their application sent back can still select from this broad selection of categories.
But what's really interesting for me are your comments about the rule of law. It seems to me that under the rule of law, discretion is limited by criteria. The criteria that have been introduced here are clear, shining examples of criteria that are in the interest of Canada and all Canadians. Surely there's no curtailment of the rule of law when the discretion that is to be applied is going to be applied based on these criteria that Canadians, employers, family members, and overseas immigrants have all pointed to as leading to an improved system, which you call a dream.