Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 13 - Evidence - May 28, 2008 (Afternoon meeting)
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 28, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, to which was referred the subject matter of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget, met this day at 2:05 p.m. to consider the subject matter of the bill.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I welcome you all to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance. My name is Joseph Day, and I represent the Province of New Brunswick. I am honoured to chair this committee.
The committee's field of interest is government spending and operations, including reviewing the activities of officers of Parliament and various other individuals and groups that help parliamentarians hold the government to account.
We conduct this review through the estimate process of expenditures and funds made available to officers of Parliament to perform their functions and through budget implementation acts and other matters referred to this Senate committee.
On May 15, 2008, our committee received authority and direction from the Senate chamber to study the subject matter of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008, and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget. That bill is more commonly referred to as the Budget Implementation Act 2008. We will hear two panels dealing with one aspect of the bill today, and we will continue our study tomorrow and into next week.
I am pleased to welcome as individuals, David Cohen, an immigration lawyer, and James Bissett; Victor Wong, Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council; and Naveen Mehta, who is a lawyer and Director of Human Rights Equity and Diversity of STATUS NOW! — Campaign in Defence of Undocumented Immigrants.
I thank you all for coming here to help honourable senators understand this aspect of this large budget implementation bill, Bill C-50. I wonder, Mr. Cohen, if each of you would like to make a short presentation, and then we will have a question and answer period.
Honourable senators, when the bell starts ringing for the vote, which I believe will be at 3:15 p.m., we are close to the chamber so we can continue for five to ten minutes to finish up the line of discussion that we are on. This panel will continue until about 3:20 p.m. or 3:25 p.m.. We will pause to vote and then return for the next panel.
Mr. Cohen, you have the floor.
David Cohen, Immigration Lawyer, as an individual: I appear before you today because of a story that my late grandfather told me when I was young and impressionable. He spoke of how his younger sister fled Poland just ahead of the Nazi occupation and how she managed to secure a residency permit in England valid for one year. My grandfather did everything he possibly could to convince immigration authorities in Ottawa to allow her to join him in Canada. His plea fell on deaf ears. The door to Canada was shut. In the end, his sister was expelled from England back to Poland. She was never heard from again.
The truth be told, we have not always had an immigration policy to be proud of. I have been practicing immigration law for the better part of 30 years, and I state candidly that it was only in 2002, with the introduction of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, IRPA, that decisions based on discretion were removed from our immigration selection system, at least with respect to economic immigrants.
IRPA, in its present form, is a fine piece of legislation in which the selection of economic immigrants is based purely on objective criteria. It is based on the fundamental principle that everyone who chooses to submit an application to live in Canada is entitled to fair and equitable consideration.
The government now proposes to amend IRPA. As part of the proposed changes, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration would have the authority to issue instructions to immigration officers related to the processing of applications — more specifically, instructions as to which type of applications to process quickly, which applications to hold for processing at a later date and, finally, which type of applications to return to sender without any consideration at all.
These amendments, if passed, would change our immigration selection system from one that provides fair consideration to all applications in the order they are received, to a system based upon discretionary selection and outright denial of consideration. This change would expose the immigration system to the type of discretion that IRPA finally eliminated.
Please understand that the issuance of instructions by the minister will not magically change anything. In practice, the minister must delegate the exercise of discretion to immigration officers who will pick and choose the applications to be processed. This practice will unavoidably make Canada's selection system vulnerable to human bias or worse.
The minister states that these amendments are required to streamline and modernize the immigration system. In particular, the government intends to use the amendments to clear out the current backlog, consisting primarily of 600,000 skilled worker applications. In addition, the government contends that the amendments are necessary to bring applicants whose skill sets are in high demand in Canada to the front of the immigration queue.
In fact, these amendments are not required to achieve the desired goals. IRPA, in its present form, contains the mechanisms to control the flow of economic immigrants and to bring applicants desired by Canadian employers to the front of the immigration line, and IRPA does it objectively and transparently. Allow me to explain briefly.
The backlog, simply put, exists because the number of new applications received every year is more than the number of visas issued during the year. One of the IRPA regulations now in place foresees this very eventuality. It empowers the minister to set the minimum number of points required to qualify as a skilled worker, keeping in view the number of applications currently processed versus the target number of immigrant visas to be issued. The minister therefore simply may raise the pass mark above the level of 67 points to curtail the number of fresh applications. People can count, and they will not pay $550 in government processing fees only to be refused on the merits of their application.
The minister may also make use, under the current regulations, of what is referred to as restricted occupations.
After conducting the appropriate consultations with provincial governments and other relevant stakeholders, the minister may designate as restricted certain occupations for which there is little demand in Canada and in the Canadian labour market.
Potential applicants with experience in a restricted occupation will receive no points for their work experience, which prevents them from qualifying under the skilled-worker category. Therefore, they will have no incentive to apply. This restriction ensures that Canada selects a higher number of immigrants who meet the immediate labour market needs.
Finally, the present legislation allows for what we call arranged employment in Canada. A genuine job offer from a Canadian employer entitles an applicant to an immediate temporary work permit or accelerated processing of a permanent-resident application. This provision allows the best and brightest to be brought to the head of the queue.
To summarize, IRPA currently provides the mechanisms that permit the government to achieve all its goals; namely, cutting through the existing backlog of skilled-worker cases and prioritizing the processing of applicants whose work experience is in high demand. IRPA is fair and it can work.
I know I have taken up most of my time. I would like an extra two minutes to say a few words about the backlog in general. It is important in understanding the overall amendments.
The subject of backlogs is more complicated than meets the eye. The government gives the impression that there is a backlog of a single line of 600,000 skilled-worker applicants stretching as far as the eye can see. In fact, the reality is different. Some visa offices, like the one in New Delhi, have huge backlogs with a five-year wait to be considered for immigration.
Other visa offices, like the one in Buffalo, can process an application to conclusion in well under two years.
The situation is a direct result of the fact that the minister sets yearly targets for visa issuance at each visa office and then assigns the resources necessary to achieve those targets.
Therefore, the total number of pending applications is not the only aspect of the equation to consider. The allocation of resources is an integral part of the problem and the solution.
Perhaps the situation requires a redistribution of resources to the visa offices with the longest processing times instead of giving the minister the power to completely shut the door to Canada.
Once we have a society that selectively can close its doors to applicants, even temporarily, it is not a big step to becoming a society that is comfortable opening its doors only to some but not to others.
Canadians of Chinese, Jewish and Italian descent will not be shocked if that happens.
The Chair: Other questions may arise with respect to this issue of the backlog and the impact this legislation will have on that backlog. We can go into that perhaps if senators are interested.
Mr. Bissett, do you have any further comments to add at this time?
James Bissett, as an individual: Yes, thank you very much, chair. Thank you to members of the committee for allowing me to appear before you.
I believe the proposed changes the government has introduced in this bill are needed, and they are needed to regain control of an immigration flow that is out of control. We face a growing backlog of people who have met all the requirements to come to Canada; they have paid their fees and are waiting in line. Some of them will wait probably up to six years to come here.
The numbers are estimated to be over 950,000, and the department itself estimates that in two years that backlog will have expanded to 1.5 million people. These numbers are enormous. If we add the refugee board's backlog of 62,000, many of whom will eventually become landed immigrants, and the reality that we have around 200,000 temporary workers in Canada — in my view, few of those will return — we are talking about enormous numbers here.
The system must be fixed because it is unfair to people. These are not only numbers; they are people. People are waiting sometimes years to join their families here or to come to jobs that have been promised to them.
The system must be fixed, and the government has chosen this method of fixing it. There may be other issues, but this one is critical. It must be fixed and fixed quickly.
The problem stems from the 2001 immigration act that was passed; the IRPA, as it is called. It was a fine immigration act in many ways, but it missed an essential element. That is, it did not contain within it any mechanism for controlling the numbers. That is the problem. Anyone who meets the selection criterion shall be accepted. The problem is, of course, there are many more millions of young people, particularly in Asia — India and China — where universities are producing thousands of young, bright people who can easily meet our selection criteria and are anxious to come here. If we do not do something to stop the flow, the backlog will continue to increase.
The Liberal government passed the act in 2001, and within a year they realized they were in deep trouble because the backlog was building up. Far too many people were meeting the selection criteria. They tried to fix the system by raising the pass mark of those who had already qualified. Of course, that was declared by the courts to be unfair and ultra vires.
Nothing has been done since that time. In the meantime, of course, the backlogs have reached almost one million people. The backlog will continue to grow, because this Conservative government's minister has announced that in 2009 the target will be 265,000 new immigrants, not including the backlog.
The reality is, we cannot continue to accept all those who simply meet the selection criteria. We must have some mechanism of controlling the flow and managing it so we can turn the tap on and off when we feel it is necessary to do so.
I see no suggestion anywhere in this regulation that the minister will have the discretion to keep people out and close the door. It will be done as it normally is; by regulation change. The regulation change will be published in the Canada Gazette, the change will be discussed before parliamentary committees and it will be discussed with immigrant ethnic groups and others, as is being done at the moment, I understand.
There has been much speculation about this bill and whether there is a hidden agenda here. One group of lawyers appearing before the House of Commons standing committee said the bureaucrats in the department and their lust for power are behind this Machiavellian bill. Most of those charges are sheer nonsense. A critical situation faces Canada, and we must do something about it.
It has been tackled before. It was declared illegal. This time, I think it must go through or this immigration system that Canadians have been so proud of — and so many countries around the world have emulated — will turn into a fiasco. We do not have much time to change this system.
The minister has assured Parliament and the House of Commons that these changes will not affect the backlog directly. She will try to do that with a budgetary increase of $1.8 million over a period of years to increase staff and tackle the backlog problem. However, something must be done to enable the government to manage the incoming flow or the backlog will become larger and people will suffer.
Senator Di Nino: Chair, you introduced Mr. Bissett as an individual. It may be useful for us to know who he is, what his background is and why he is here. If we do not have that information, perhaps he can tell us.
The Chair: Mr. Bissett, would you like to give us some of your background?
Mr. Bissett: I am a former diplomat. I was a Canadian Ambassador in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania and High Commissioner to Trinidad and Tobago. I spent 36 years in the public service, and much of that time was dealing with immigration and refugee issues. From 1985 to 1990, I was the head of the Canadian immigration service. I also worked for an organization called the International Organization for Migration, headquartered in Geneva. I was their chief of mission from 1992 to 1997 in Moscow. Most of my career has been dedicated to immigration and refugee issues.
The Chair: Thank you for that impressive background. I think that is helpful, Senator Di Nino.
For the record, Mr. Bissett, are you here today, though, as an individual not representing any particular organization or group?
Mr. Bissett: I am here as an individual, definitely.
The Chair: Thank you. I had that part right.
Next, I will reintroduce Victor Wong with the Chinese Canadian National Council.
Victor Wong, Executive Director, Chinese Canadian National Council: Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for welcoming us today. I represent the Chinese Canadian National Council, which was founded 28 years ago. We are a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across Canada. Our mandate is to promote the equality rights and full participation of our community members in all aspects of Canadian society. With me are my colleagues from Montreal, Alice Choy and Danny Mah from the Association for Business and Community Development.
We believe that legislation and public policies must reflect the democratic, humanitarian and social justice values commonly shared by Canadians. Such policies should enhance the ability of everyone, including newcomers, to make an important contribution to the future of this country.
According to the 2006 census, more than 1.3 million Chinese Canadians live in Canada. We are the second largest racial community in Canada.
The Chinese Canadian community is a diverse community with a rich, though sometimes tragic, history spanning 150 years in this country. Our community was subjected to the racist legislation in the form of the Chinese Head Tax, the Newfoundland Head Tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. The community was also subjected to various exclusionary policies, programs and practices at the local level.
My own grandfather paid the head tax. He spent 60 years to unite his family in Canada. I am his first Canadian- born descendant.
It is this direct experience with exclusionary immigration legislation experienced by many of our community members that guides us in formulating our analysis.
We must recognize that immigration is integral to nation building. Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently stated that the government favours ``an aggressive immigration policy.''
We need to be visionary as opposed to applying a just-in-time business model. Immigration is not about filling regional labour market shortages and Citizenship and Immigration Canada is not a temp agency. We should be building an inclusive nation of active citizens.
We have three recommendations.
First, we need a comprehensive immigration plan, one that offers a clear path to legal status and citizenship. We know that Canada's population is aging. More workers are retiring as the baby boomers start to turn 65 years of age beginning in 2011.
The birthrate is low. With the right vision, we can develop the proper plan based on an aggressive immigration policy. The proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 are not the answer.
When these proposed changes were first introduced in March of this year, Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, Diane Finley, said that they were needed to address the backlog in applications. However, these proposed changes in Bill C-50 apply to applications received on or after February 27, 2008 and not to the existing backlog of applications.
The government suggested that these changes will help to process applications more quickly. However, over the last three years, Canada has essentially met its immigration target range. We have received an average of 250,000 immigrants every year: 236,689 in 2007; 251,649 in 2006; and 262,236 in 2005. These applications were processed with the existing complement of staff resources. In other words, we are already at our capacity.
Even if Canada is more productive and is able to process our target of 250,000 immigrants within nine months, for example, we would need to stop because we have already met the immigration target. Therefore, we conclude that we cannot reduce the backlog unless we increase the immigration target range.
Second, we recommend that the current immigration target range for Canada of 240,000 to 265,000 be increased to 300,000 to 330,000. This new target is approximately 1 per cent of the Canadian population, which would address this backlog.
We know that over the last few weeks, you have seen community and labour groups vigorously oppose Bill C-50. The proposed immigration changes would grant sweeping powers to the minister and her designates. It would restrict some humanitarian and compassionate grounds applications. It would allow the minister to adjust certain immigration categories, such as the skilled immigrants, family class refugees, et cetera. Therefore, communities are rightly concerned that the government could reduce numbers in the family class.
The immigration minister recently mentioned that these changes are needed to fast-track certain professions. She cited the example of doctors. We know that Alberta, for example, needs another 1,000 doctors. However, there are thousands of foreign-trained doctors already living in Canada. They cannot practice in their field, even though they have re-written and passed their exams. Instead, they must compete for a limited number of residencies.
Bill C-50 will not address the plight of these foreign-trained doctors. Without a comprehensive strategy that would include the participation of the provinces, health authorities, universities and professional bodies, we will only end up with an increasing backlog of foreign-trained doctors living in Canada.
This lack of transparency with Bill C-50 has created this climate of mistrust. The immigration department has had weeks to table a revised immigration plan to allow us to analyze the impact of these changes.
Instead, what has the government done? They have decided to spend $3 million in advertising to promote these immigration changes before they have even been passed into law.
Third, our final recommendation is to request that this committee recommend that the immigration changes in Bill C-50 be withdrawn and that the government, instead, issue a proper discussion paper and organize a national consultation before drafting legislation.
The House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration made this very recommendation last week. There are numerous problems with the immigration system. The new Canadian experience class, which this government has introduced, for example, benefits students and higher-skilled workers. However, it excludes lower- skilled workers, people like my grandfather who came to Canada.
Yes, we do need an aggressive immigration policy. However, we need one that respects human dignity and yields real choices to those who wish to stay in Canada.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Wong.
Naveen P. Mehta, Lawyer, Director, Human Rights, Equity and Diversity, STATUS NOW! — Campaign in Defence of Undocumented Immigrants: Thank you to the committee and the chair for allowing me this opportunity to speak.
I am here before you wearing many hats. Hopefully my analysis will entail this, particularly from a labour analysis. In my brief amount of time, I want to paint a vivid picture of what is happening on the ground.
I am here on behalf of the STATUS NOW! — Campaign in Defence of Undocumented Immigrants. Our campaign includes various national, regional and local immigrant refugee organizations, community organizations, trade unions and agencies.
I am also here on behalf of United Food and Commercial Workers, UFCW, Canada, which is a member organization of STATUS NOW! and one of the largest private-sector trade unions in Canada. With almost a quarter of a million members from coast to coast, and almost 1.3 million members across Canada and the United States, there is a UFCW member in every sector of the economy.
I am also here as a lawyer and the Director of Human Rights, Equity and Diversity for the UFCW Canada. I am an activist in the South Asian community, which has ties across the country and is the largest racialized minority community in Canada.
From the perspective of organized labour and working people in this country, and in line with Canadian demographics, a large proportion of our members at UFCW Canada are immigrants or second- or third-generation immigrants. The feedback we have received from these members flows along a spectrum. They are anywhere from deeply concerned to shocked and outraged, to disgusted, at the prospect of the proposed amendments to IRPA becoming law.
We know there is good reason for this reaction. The amendments in Bill C-50 to IRPA give unprecedented powers to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to control the types of applications it accepts, to impose quotas, to dispose of immigration applications and to facilitate queue jumping. The minister has indicated that she is interested in fulfilling the needs of business. Thus, from my perspective and from the perspective of the UFCW Canada, the de facto decision-makers as to who comes to this country and who stays will apparently be left to the human resources departments of our major corporations.
Bill C-50 through its amendments to IRPA put critical limits on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, which currently are the only channels for many who encounter challenges in the process of family reunification. It gives the minister the power to deny visas to those who meet all the immigration criteria.
Bill C-50 amendments to IRPA further support the current policy shift whereby immigrants increasingly are being understood and treated as economic units to be brought here through temporary visa arrangements instead of through permanent residency programs.
Everyone in this room, with the exception of our sisters and brothers from First Nations, is here as a result of some sort of immigration strategy or immigration regime. Let me be frank: This legislation is clearly about profits before people. It is about ensuring that the average worker in Canada with decent wages is now in a race to the bottom in the competition with poorly paid and frequently abused temporary foreign workers. Who will employers pick: a vocal protector of their own rights who was born here, and who knows one of the official languages or someone who is isolated and who might not know the language?
This legislation is about creating an environment that is detrimental to the vast majority of Canadians. The UFCW Canada has been the voice of farm workers and, particularly, the most vulnerable of those farm workers — temporary migrant farm workers — for over two decades now. Every year, we aid the many of over 20,000 people who are imported to this country, toil in the fields, are crammed into unliveable housing and then discarded when they are spent or no longer needed.
We know first-hand the horrors that are endured by these workers. Through UFCW Canada's eight national farm worker support centres, we have defended the rights of migrant farm workers and fought against the limited access to health care, the decrepit housing conditions, the threats of repatriation, the assaults, the lost limbs and the deaths.
Our members agree that Bill C-50 will create a more perfect environment in which these types of abuses will only thrive and fester as a national wound to Canada, not only on the farms but increasingly in factories, offices and potentially, any workplaces where unscrupulous employers want an employee who is isolated and more easily exploited.
I can tell you from first-hand accounts that successful governments have done a pitiful job at protecting the basic fundamental labour and human rights of these workers. Their treatment is a national embarrassment. These amendments, however, emphasize that we need more of this protection. How will the federal government protect the rights of 50,000 or 100,000 temporary foreign farm workers when they cannot even protect 20,000? What about the 180,000 temporary foreign workers imported into this country each year, whose numbers are rumoured to increase to 800,000 by 2012? Nothing in these amendments even begins to deal with what increasingly is described as a national catastrophe.
This legislation emphasizes the process of relegating human beings to mere commodities, such as fertilizer or iron, in the production process. Import what we have need of and discard what we do not. Rather than reducing the backlogs through immigration targets, as Mr. Wong mentioned, to about 330,000 — which is about 1 per cent of the Canadian population — these amendments will have a tragic effect on Canadians from all walks of life: Immigrants, those with status, those without status, racialized people and workers.
Apparently governments are no longer content with people slipping through the cracks. Through Bill C-50, the present government attempts to construct systematically even greater canyons of abuse and stand by idly as dodgy employers enthusiastically bring more and more foreign workers in.
At the same time, the emphasis on nation building and family reunification will be diminished. Our members at UFCW Canada and the member organizations of STATUS NOW! are sickened by this situation.
This week, I have been a delegate on behalf of UFCW Canada at the Canadian Labour Congress Convention in Toronto. The CLC is the largest democratic organization in the country with over 3.2 million members. I have taken a break, of course, from that convention to be here with you. In both the formal and informal discussions happening amongst the 2,000 delegates about these proposed amendments, it is clear to us that these proposals merely attempt to capitalize on the sense of hopelessness and isolation felt by many temporary foreign workers. We find these changes unacceptable, un-Canadian and clearly undemocratic.
At present, we respectfully make two recommendations to this committee. However, at the same time we fully support the recommendations of the Chinese Canadian National Council and two of the groups you will hear this afternoon on the next panel: The Canadian Arab Federation and the Canadian Ethnocultural Council.
First, we respectfully suggest a clause-by-clause review and analysis by the Senate. Immigration legislation is among the most important legislation that a government can put forward as it determines the basis for which people become citizens and come to this country. As such, in light of my comments, a clause-by-clause review by the Senate is essential.
It is unreasonable in light of the detrimental effects on potentially thousands and millions of people in this country and abroad to have this legislation rammed down the throats of Canadians with such haste.
Second, we respectfully recommend that there be national consultations. The amendments to IRPA go against how Canada was built. It was built by immigrants and First Nations people, from John A. Macdonald to Walter Gretzky to my father and to all of you — people who came here, raised families here, pay taxes here and struggled on this soil. The IRPA places an undesirable emphasis on temporary foreign workers who are some of the most easily exploited workers in this country.
These misguided amendments have nothing to do with nation building in the 21st century. We respectfully suggest these amendments should be withdrawn.
Given the essential importance of immigration to country building, and a country built on the backs of immigrants, there needs to be more open and transparent national and comprehensive hearings on immigration. It must be meaningful consultation, not immigration legislation based only on the perceived needs of corporate Canada or, worse, the whims of an out-of-touch immigration minister.
We suggest the Senate could go out there and hold hearings across the country, not listen to only us lucky few in Ottawa. Subject to any questions you might have, those are my comments.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mehta. We appreciate your comments, but a new event has come upon us. There is another vote, which is an amendment to the vote we will take at 3:15 p.m. for 3:30 p.m. I have two small items of business; then I suggest we pause and that you stay if your time permits, for a question and answer period.
We will have another panel shortly after 3:30 p.m. when we return, and then we could have a discussion with all of you who can remain, along with the members of the second panel after their presentations. I am glad we were able to have your presentation. Senator Di Nino has another point of clarification.
Senator Di Nino: Mr. Chair, a reference was made to UFCW. It is important that we put on record what that organization is. I believe it is United Food and Commercial Workers Union. Maybe you can inform us for clarity for the record.
Mr. Mehta: My apologies. The senator is correct; it is the United Food and Commercial Workers Canada.
The Chair: Thank you. On another point of clarification, Mr. Wong referred to a recommendation by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I have a copy of that letter in one language but, Mr. Wong, unless you have a copy in both official languages — to Rob Merrifield, M.P., from Norman Doyle, M.P., dated May 15 — I will ask our clerk to try to obtain a copy from the House of Commons so that any documentation that has been referred to by you can be made available to all of us here.
Honourable senators, in five minutes there will be a vote on an amendment to the legislation on the Canadian Wheat Board, and then the vote on the overall motion will take place. As soon as that second vote is over, I ask you all to return promptly and we will begin with our second panel. Hopefully, most of the first panel will still be here.
The committee suspended.
The committee resumed.
The Chair: Welcome to our new witnesses. I will introduce them in a moment. We had a short recess to vote on proposed pieces of legislation and I thank those who were on our earlier panel for your understanding in that regard. Thank you for staying. If you want, we can engage in the question and answer period following this session. I expect we will have an hour and a half.
My name is Senator Joseph Day. I chair this committee and am from New Brunswick. The committee's field of interest is government spending and operations. We review estimates of expenditures and funds made available to officers of Parliament to perform their functions, through budget implementation acts and other matters referred to the Senate committee.
At present, we are dealing with the budget implementation act, Bill C-50. We are dealing with the subject matter of the bill. The bill itself is still in the House of Commons. On May 15, 2008, our committee received authority to study the subject matter, and we anticipate that we will have the bill itself early next week. All this evidence and background information that you are able to bring to us will help in our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
We thank those who were here earlier: Mr. Cohen, Mr. Bissett, Mr. Wong and Mr. Mehta. I want to welcome from the Canadian Arab Federation, Mr. Mouammar, President; from the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance, Mr. Pang, Acting President; and from the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, Mr. Ferreira, President.
If each of you want to make a few introductory remarks, let us start with the Canadian Arab Federation and we will go from there.
Khaled Mouammar, President, Canadian Arab Federation: I will start by introducing the Canadian Arab Federation. Our organization has been in existence since 1967. We are a national organization representing 22 Arab organizations across Canada. The Arab community consists of about 650,000 across Canada, evenly split between Muslims and Christians. I, myself, am a Christian.
We thank you for giving us this opportunity to make a submission on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act under Bill C-50. We welcome the government's interest in dealing with the backlog of immigration. However, we feel that the manner and substance in which this will be done is not right.
I am talking also from my experience on the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada where I served for 11 years. We had a backlog of refugees at one time. The way we dealt with that backlog was to look at the process and the bottlenecks in the system, streamline those bottlenecks and put more members to work to simplify the process.
I think with those steps we were able to deal with the backlog successfully.
The Arab community has been increasingly susceptible to racism, discrimination and exclusion since September, 2001. I have presented a submission with an attachment which you will receive later. A survey done by Sun Media in January, 2007, indicated that 47 per cent of Canadians harbour some racist views towards the Arab community. We are the community most negatively viewed by an average Canadian. This view is understandable as a result of media coverage and developments in world affairs.
Muslim students, amongst whom there are Arab Muslims, face daily discrimination on campuses, as reported by the Canadian Federation of Students in a report from March of last year.
Our reservation with regard to this bill is that it gives the minister wide powers to issue instructions. At the same time, changes made to the wording indicate that the minister can refuse applicants who meet the point system. The minister and immigration officers, according to the changes — by changing the wording from ``shall'' to ``may'' — can refuse an applicant who meets the criteria and not issue the applicant a visa. This change of wording leaves no room for such applicants to appeal.
This change is a serious one. Decisions can be made without any parliamentary oversight and without any debate. The instructions that allow the minister to define the categories to be expedited and the sequence of the applicants by jumping them in the queue can all be done without any parliamentary oversight or knowledge.
This situation concerns us a great deal. Incidents in the last few years have proven that government officials are susceptible to biases. I refer here to the Maher Arar case. Mr. Arar was a Canadian citizen who remained in a Syrian jail for a long period before the government intervened and sought his release. Also, the case of a child, Omar Khadr, who is now in Guantánamo, has been neglected by the governments that have come and gone since he was arrested.
Recently, we heard of a Sudanese Canadian citizen who has been stranded in Sudan for five years. Again, his case has not been treated quickly by our government. Yet, in the case of Brenda Martin, who was convicted by Mexican authorities and kept in jail, the government intervened immediately. A government-chartered jet was sent to retrieve her and yet nothing is done in the cases of a Sudanese Canadian, an Egyptian Canadian, and a Somali Canadian. The Somali Canadian has been in jail for one year. He has not even been granted consular visits.
We all have biases. I have biases. Everyone has biases. I have worked on the refugee board and I know people who are progressive but they have biases. They might not like someone if that person is tall, fat or has a beard. We leave this decision in the hands of immigration officers who can reject someone even though that person meets the criteria as an applicant, and no one can challenge that decision in court.
In short, Bill C-50 can create a system of immigration based on discrimination, which will replicate past mistakes with the Chinese Exclusion Act and the Indian Exclusion Act in respect of people from India. It is important to retrieve these provisions from this bill, as was recommended by the Standing Committee on Finance of the House of Commons. Separate these issues and discuss them properly in consultation with all communities and all parties involved.
Otherwise, our system will be based on discrimination. At the same time, there is a focus on temporary workers, which means we bring in people on a temporary basis who are mostly unskilled. If they were skilled, they would have applied through the point system. We are bringing in unskilled labourers, training them for a couple of years and then they leave. We lose because it costs Canadians to train these people who leave. At the same time, we push the salaries of Canadian workers to a lower level and that is not fair.
In conclusion, Bill C-50 gives wide discretionary powers and ministerial instructions and, therefore, the amended act becomes a tool for racist selection and exclusion without knowledge or accountability of Parliament and the Canadian public.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Mouammar. I appreciate your comments. So it is clear to those following our deliberations, the section to which you referred concerning the change of the wording from ``shall'' to ``may'' is clause 116 on page 95 amending section 11(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Mr. Mouammar: That amendment applies also to the humanitarian and compassionate claims made from outside the country. Currently, the minister cannot refuse those immediately but must provide an explanation. However, with the change from ``shall'' to ``may,'' a minister can refuse without an active process.
Tom Pang, Acting President, Chinese Canadian Community Alliance: The Chinese Canadian Community Alliance, CCCA, is a non-profit association based in Toronto. Unfortunately, our president passed away last November so, during this period, I will act as president.
One of the major purposes of the CCCA is to bridge the Chinese community to areas outside the Chinese community. Therefore, immigration policies are one of the major items we are interested in. Since the immigration amendments were presented, there have been all kinds of debates within the community on the pros and cons of the issue. After discussing and studying these amendments, the CCCA is in a position to support them.
One major problem with the status quo is the waiting list. There was an article a few days ago in The Toronto Star about one person who applied in 2001, fresh out of university. Six years later, he is married, has a son, has a good career, and he is still waiting for an answer from Canada. More than 920,000 people are on the waiting list, and we must solve that problem. It takes about four to six years of waiting before one's application can be processed. Many things can change during that period. Unfortunately, some people might die. Some might change their career. Some, like the example in The Toronto Star article, might start a successful career and no longer want to come to Canada. There is one more factor: During the waiting period, if the children grow up to be more than 21 years old, they will not qualify as dependants. With all this waiting, some people wind up coming and leaving some family members behind in the old country.
Another problem that many of us in the Chinese community are aware of is that people cannot find the type of job they had in the old country. They wind up working in restaurants, washing dishes, or working in labour jobs, and their backgrounds might include qualifications as university professors, engineers or medical doctors. They cannot find a job comparable to what they had before. We believe that the immigration amendments will solve these two problems.
Unfortunately, as Mr. Mouammar mentioned, the discussion and debate has focused on the minister's power, in particular the words ``shall'' and ``may.'' China has a population of 1.3 billion. What if as few as 1 per cent of them were to apply and qualify to come to Canada? We are talking about 13 million people. Are we ready to accept that number of immigrants to Canada? Does the minister have the power to say, we may let them in, instead of we shall let them in?
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Pang. There is a divergence of views on the issue. We appreciate hearing both sides of the discussion.
Peter Ferreira, President, Canadian Ethnocultural Council: In addition to being President of the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, I was formerly a senior immigration officer and currently, am a paralegal consultant.
Founded in 1980, the Canadian Ethnocultural Council, CEC, is a non-profit, non-partisan coalition of national, ethnocultural umbrella organizations that, in turn, represent a cross-section of ethnocultural groups across Canada. They total approximately 32. We have elections this Sunday, and seven other national organizations are asking to join the CEC.
The objectives of CEC are to ensure the preservation, enhancement and sharing of the cultural heritage of Canadians, the removal of barriers that prevent some Canadians from participating fully and equally in society, the elimination of racism and the preservation of a united Canada.
It is a cliché but one worth repeating: We are blessed to live in a wonderful nation with such a diversity of people. They are our strength, and our diversity will continue to define us as we seek to build and bolster our economy.
Canada's economy continues to be strong, but it is no secret that as our population ages, we may be faced with labour market shortages that may slow this growth. In the past, we have looked to immigration as an answer to this challenge. Today's newcomers come ready to work but may face challenges that are more complex as we move from a resource-based to a knowledge economy.
Systemic barriers to full inclusion for Canada's ethnic and racial communities still exist. Language barriers, lack of training opportunities and recognition of foreign credentials are examples of obstacles that impede immigrants from joining the labour force. When these obstacles are overcome, lack of Canadian experience and even indirect discrimination still frustrate the creation of a fully integrated workforce.
Skilled immigrants are critical to keeping our economy healthy, and immigration has long been the main source of population growth in Canada. Tapping into the skills and expertise of newcomers benefits almost every industry.
As an immigrant myself, I see both sides of the coin. I know that immigration is also good for those who choose to leave their countries of origin and come to live here. They may even sacrifice high-paying jobs to do so.
Can Canada do more to attract immigrants? Yes, and we need to. We need to acknowledge that it takes a lot of courage to uproot a family and come here. I believe we need immigration reform that creates an even more welcoming environment, with reductions in lengthy processing times, enhanced language training and anything else that will help ease the transition from newcomers to productive members of society.
In addition to competing globally for trade, Canada competes with other countries for people. There is a lack of skilled workers worldwide, a trend that has been increasing for years. As an example, many of our member organizations have been telling the government since the 1980s that we need more people in construction, and that immigration is one way to fill the gap.
Today, the potential immigrants we could use in this sector from countries such as Ireland and Portugal, to name but two, are staying where they are because there is a shortage in the European Union as well. We need to promote coming to Canada as a more attractive option, and it usually is.
Immigration is a win-win situation, both for those who choose to relocate here and for Canada as a whole. As a Canadian citizen, I am pleased and proud that we have put out such a substantial welcome mat, and I hope that welcome widens in the near future for even more newcomers.
The Canadian government is promoting its controversial Bill C-50 by including, in Part 6, immigration amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. The government promises that the amendments will reduce our current backlog of some 950,000 applications, produce faster processing times and make our system more responsive to Canada's labour market needs. To accomplish these goals, the government proposes to give the immigration minister unprecedented new powers. The government maintains that the minister needs those powers to cherry-pick applicants who are needed here on a priority basis.
Our current legislation states that the federal cabinet may make any regulation relating to classes of permanent residents or foreign nationals, including selection criteria: the weight, if any, to be given to all or some of those criteria; the procedures to be followed in evaluating all or some of those criteria; the number of applications to be processed or approved in a year, et cetera.
The reality is that our current legislation authorizes the minister to set target levels and to prioritize certain classes of applicants without even passing a regulation. I respectfully argue that the minister has the power under our current legislation to make virtually any changes she wants, subject to the Charter.
The CEC is concerned with the passage of this bill as we believe that the proposals set forth belong in an immigration bill because we have had far too little debate on the kind of immigration program Canada needs. If the bill passes as presented, this minister and others who will follow her will be free to govern by decree and eliminate public debate on immigration policy. We do not believe that the publication of the minister's instructions in the Canada Gazette is a substitute for an open debate.
The CEC proposes that the best way to eliminate the backlog and speed up the immigration process is by dedicating more resources, increasing the levels, and simplifying the process. This bill does not address the process and is simply a transfer of power from the cabinet to the minister.
The Chair: That is good, and I appreciate your comments. Before I go to the list of senators who want to pose questions, in the first session we had a question as to the date of coming into force of certain aspects of the bill. A comment was made by a number of our witnesses that February 27 was the day.
We found that date as a coming into force for one portion of the bill, in clause 120 of Bill C-50 on page 97. Clause 120 provides that section 87.3 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which is the section that gives the minister wide discretion on setting the categories of immigrants and the rules that apply, will come into force, if the bill is passed, on February 27, 2008.
The other point I wanted to bring to your attention was the letter mentioned by Mr. Wong and others; that letter has now been circulated in both official languages. The letter is from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration in the House of Commons to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, which had the main charge of reviewing the bill in the House of Commons, as does our finance committee here in the Senate.
The Immigration Committee took it upon themselves to advise with respect to the immigration aspects, which is Part 6. The part includes section 116 to section 120 out of a bill of 164 sections, but we are focusing on these sections in these hearings.
I will to go to our senators. First is our senator from Toronto, Senator Di Nino.
Senator Di Nino: I have never seen as many witnesses as we have here today all at once. Thank you all for coming. I will not go one by one or my time will be up.
First, I want to clarify something that Mr. Mouammar said when he talked about our situation — the Khadr situation and the Martin situation. Obviously, none of that situation has anything to do with this bill.
Having said that, for clarification, Ms. Martin was found guilty by a court of law, sentenced to a jail term in a foreign country with which we have agreements that allow us to apply once they have been sentenced and in effect their due process is finished . We have an agreement with Mexico, as we do, I believe, with the U.S., and I am not sure how many other countries. The other two folks that we talked about are not in that position whatever. I do not think we can compare those situations, although none of that information has anything to do with the bill itself.
Let me deal with this so-called power of the minister. That power is a bit of a red herring. Obviously, I want to ask those — hopefully only a couple — who have raised this issue to respond to my question. First, any law obviously is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Second, any minister with the authority to conduct the affairs of the department requires the approval of cabinet before any decisions are made. Therefore there are two steps that one can refer to.
Third, publication takes place during the period that a law is being prepared where it is out there in the public agenda for discussion or complaints. After that period, laws, unless they are regulation — and perhaps even regulations — are checked by Parliament. Laws are then processed through Parliament.
Is that not a democratic system? Is that excessive power on behalf of the minister?
Two or three of you raised that issue. Does somebody want to make a comment?
Mr. Cohen: I want to respond, if I might. We start off in Canada with a law that is presented before Parliament and passed. That law generally contains the goals of whatever department it is. We then rely upon regulations to achieve those goals.
That is the general way we do things in Canada, the general way in which democracies operate, and that is the way the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act has operated until now. We have the law and we attain the goals of the law through the implementation of the regulations. All this process occurs before Parliament openly and transparently.
In Bill C-50, proposed section 87.3(2) states that:
The processing of applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.
Rather than the regulations that we currently have in place that can effect all the goals that the minister so desires, we now rely upon the opinion. That, I suggest, is a significant difference from how we have been doing things until now, and how things ought to be done in an open democracy.
Senator Di Nino: Surely you agree that, subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it can be challenged.
Mr. Cohen: I agree that the laws of Canada are to be interpreted according to the Charter. However, I am not sure what that has to do with —
Senator Di Nino: There is a recourse if somebody feels that —
Mr. Cohen: It is an expensive recourse for anyone that feels aggrieved,who will generally be outside of Canada. It would be difficult for that person to do it. Yes, the Charter is there, as it is with every other law.
Mr. Mouammar: There are interpretations that the Charter does not apply outside of Canada. In addition to the fact that they must go through this expense, the Charter might not apply to people from outside Canada.
Senator Di Nino: Are you talking about humanitarian and compassionate cases when you say that?
Mr. Mouammar: That is even for the economic class.
Senator Di Nino: Of course: However, the Charter cannot apply outside the country.
Mr. Mouammar: In that case, how can they challenge the decision of the minister? They cannot challenge the decision of the minister.
Mr. Ferreira: It is impossible.
Mr. Mouammar: I want to address your comment earlier that there is no comparison between the two cases that I mentioned.
Senator Di Nino: Related to this legislation, there is no comparison.
Mr. Mouammar: Yes, I was trying to demonstrate that there are biases in the system already. We know from our experience that processing applicants from Arab countries already takes twice as long as processing applicants from other countries. With these amendments, we fear there will be even more delays and, in most cases, maybe a rejection.
This situation is a major concern to our community. I am sure it applies to people from Africa, as well.
The problem is this: The visa offices were constructed based on immigration patterns of the 1980s. At that time, 75 per cent of immigrants came from Europe. Now there has been a shift. It is the other way around. There are not enough offices in Africa, Asia and Latin America to process the applications. That is why we have the backlog.
Instead of addressing that backlog by setting up more offices in those continents, we are trying to fix it in a way that is arbitrary, which could lead to discrimination and biases that reflect the biases of immigration officers and everybody in the system.
Senator Di Nino: No system is perfect, but let me ask Mr. Bissett for a comment. Australia, and possibly New Zealand as well, recently changed the system to similar kinds of things that we are trying to do.
I understand that their backlog was huge until they changed the system. It was an ineffective system.
It has been only a year or two, if my memory serves me correctly, that it was changed. Since you have a great deal of experience in this area, have you had an opportunity to take a look at that change and share with us some of your thoughts on why their system has become much more efficient? Why has the backlog pretty well disappeared by changing to a system similar to the one we propose under Bill C-50?
Mr. Bissett: I am not an expert on the Australian system, but they have what I consider to be advantages over our system.
First, they copied our point system. That was the first step in modernizing the Australian system. They insist, for example, that all professional applicants must have their credentials accepted by Australian authorities before they come to Australia. That means many professional applications are refused.
In Canada, many professionals come here and of course cannot practice because they do not meet the provincial licensing requirements of the various occupations and trades.
The Australians also select people on the basis of their skills and occupations, which we once did. The 2001 act that came into force dropped the factor of occupational skill and substituted education. As a result, a lot of skilled workers, carpenters, mechanics, cabinet makers and upholsterers cannot meet our selective criteria because they do not have the educational qualifications. In Australia, they select those kinds of people.
The key point in a sense was that the Australians have adopted our system. I was on the original four-person task force that devised the point system.
Our problem was, we were looking at opening up immigration to the world. Prior to that time, it was basically an all-white immigration policy. Our problem was, if we opened up immigration, how would we control the numbers? If we set out only the selection criteria to the world, as Mr. Pang has pointed out, many millions could meet the selection criteria. We needed some way to regulate the flow and turn people down, even though they were good people.
We did that by the factor occupational demand, which was worth up to 10 points. If they scored zero on occupational demand, it did not matter how many points they received on the other factors, they were turned down.
If we received too many applications, we sent out long lists of occupations with zero demand. That list cut off the flow. When times were buoyant, unemployment was low and we needed more people, we sent out occupations with points on the occupational demand factor and turned on the tap.
That list was dropped with the new act. As I said in my presentation, that flaw must be corrected. The previous government tried to correct it by raising the pass mark retroactively on those people in the backlog. The courts ruled that solution was not defensible and this government is trying to correct the situation in a different way.
The reason the Australians can control the flow is that they have a built-in mechanism to turn it on and off. In that way, they do not have massive backlogs.
By the department's own estimate, we will have about a million and a half in the backlog if this change does not come about. There may be different ways of making this change, but the government basically has decided to make it this way.
I do not agree with any of these people who have said that it gives the minister unwarranted power. In the IRPA, the minister has always had power. However, the minister receives power, as was mentioned, through the authority of cabinet by order-in-council. These instructions make that authority clear. The minister's instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette and will be discussed, debated and approved by cabinet. There is no possibility of the minister having the absolute power to turn people away without receiving that authority properly through cabinet and, ultimately, through Parliament.
I will add one comment on the difference between the Martin case and the others that were mentioned by the previous witness. The key difference is not only what you said but also that these others were dual nationals. Ms. Martin is a Canadian citizen and does not have Mexican citizenship. The other cases are dual citizens. As Canadian passports warn, if they are in the country of their original citizenship, under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the country of their second citizenship does not have the power to intervene on their behalf. Most countries allow that intervention to happen but some countries do not. Therefore, our officers are limited to the extent they can go to find out what is happening to someone who is detained in a country of their first citizenship.
Mr. Mouammar: He is a Somali Canadian in an Ethiopian jail.
The Chair: Before you go to your next question, Mr. Ferreira wants to comment on your earlier questions.
Mr. Ferreira: Fairness, the perception of fairness or the word ``fairness'' is paramount, and we are all for democracy but we should not confuse the two. Fairness is one thing and democratic principle is another. Although publishing instructions in the Canada Gazette may be considered democratic amongst senators and members of Parliament, I do not believe it is fair for the million plus who have been waiting for six to ten years. How fair is it for them now?
Consider this: The minister is about to send out 50,000 letters persuading people to give up on Canada, basically. How many more hundreds of thousands of letters will the minister send out to say: I am sorry, this new law is passed and I have given instructions not to allow you to go forward. I am not refusing you but I am telling you thank you very much for waiting in line, for waiting patiently, but you do not qualify, in my opinion.
However, she is not rejecting them. Why — because she does not want any appeals to the Federal Court. How fair is that?
We can talk democracy for as long as we want. I remember starting with the immigration department in 1975. We had a 1952 Immigration Act, which Mr. Bissett recalls, in which we had moral turpitude. How democratic was that? Canada was democratic in 1952, or were we, not to question the wisdom of the politicians of the day? I do not mean to belittle the decision of the members of Parliament and senators who passed that legislation, but how democratic was that act? It is unbelievable.
I remember working for eight years at the airport. All I had to do was look at somebody's face and basically ask myself: Will I let this person in? No, I will not. He is out. That is how it was.
How democratic was that? That was in the 1970s and 1980s, and it still happens today, but it is not as obvious.
At the end of the day, the instructions in the Canada Gazette for me cannot replace the fairness principle. This issue is a big one and the chair, a minute ago, indicated how many pages we are talking about in this finance bill and how many amendments there are to so many pieces of legislation. The best thing would be to take these provisions out of Bill C-50 and have members and senators carry them across Canada to receive input from different communities. I do not want to politicize this issue, although some might think this approach is too political while others might say it is totally democratic. I question how democratic it is.
Mr. Mehta: I want to address the finite issue of the Charter. As a lawyer, I have heard, from the minister's office and from the Conservatives often, about this lofty Charter we have, for which I have a tremendous amount of respect, and that somehow the Charter will save all. Of course, at the end of the day, which could be 20 years from now, a committee such as this, with people such as me might say: There is systemic discrimination in the immigration system as a result of the changes that originated in Bill C-50.
Twenty years later, we discover there is systemic discrimination such that, for example, the number of Arab Canadians has been reduced or the number of south Asians or Chinese Canadians immigrating to this country has been reduced. We have picked and somehow, even though we have this Charter, certain groups magically have been emphasized. That is systemic discrimination. It is not only one person; it is through the system. What do we do? We launch a class action suit.
However, the problem is that the damage was done 20 years earlier when people were trying to come to this country. The Charter absolutely does not apply to those who might be sitting at a visa office in Hong Kong. It does not apply to them. That kind of forethought should have gone into this proposed legislation. Respectfully and from my perspective, Charter issues are nonsense at this point.
The Charter applies to the proposed legislation but, 20 years later, it is difficult in the sense of human lives to quantify the damage. Those are my comments.
Senator Di Nino: Obviously, when we hear about the Immigration Act, 1952, and all the changes, debates and pros and cons that have taken place since then, in the final analysis, it worked. Look at the face of Canada, today. Mr. Ferreira, you and I, along with the number of Canadians of different religions, nationalities and cultures are making the country what it is today. These kinds of debates work.
Probably everybody on our panel agrees that we have a dysfunctional system. We have people on the list who have died while waiting. We have people who have been waiting for five, six and more years, which Mr. Pang talked about, who have given up on Canada. This bill partially tries to fix that problem. I do not think anyone here disagrees with it. They might disagree slightly but the objective is to stop the bleeding. In other words, the backlog would no longer grow and would begin to shrink. The minister has put $109 million on the table to try to solve that problem by putting more resources in all those places around the world where they have a backlog.
My question is: Do you agree that the problem needs to be fixed? It might not be perfect but at least the minister is convinced that it will help fix that problem.
The Chair: Senator, you have triggered all kinds of interest.
Mr. Wong: My comments will be brief. These proposed changes, senator, have nothing to do with the existing backlog. They will apply as of February 27, 2008, if they are passed.
The existing backlog of 925,000 is already in the system. We made a recommendation in our presentation that the government increase the target range, and that is how we effectively reduce the backlog. That is our answer.
Senator Di Nino: I did not say that it would change the backlog but that it would stop the backlog from growing, for the record.
Senator Stratton: There is a difference.
The Chair: As Mr. Wong pointed out, as long as the target number of immigrants each year is the same, the system will continue to have a problem.
Mr. Mehta do you have anything further in that regard?
Mr. Mehta: The senator noted that the minister's aim is to fix the immigration system. I absolutely agree with him, the minister is attempting to fix the immigration system, but the analysis cannot end there. When we take the next step, we ask, fix it for whom? It is not to fix it for racialized immigrants, not to fix it for working immigrants but to fix it for corporations.
If you were to do an analysis of the media and who in the media supports the legislation and who does not, the business community by and large supports the legislation. Is it because they are good-hearted people only? No, it is because they have a vested interest in ensuring they have a cheap supply of labour.
Who opposes the legislation?
Senator Di Nino: I object to that kind of discussion. That is an insult to our country — racialized and cheap labour; this is not a Third World country.
The Chair: Our witnesses must be able to make their statements and to feel they can come here and make the statements that they feel they should make.
Senator Di Nino: I cannot allow that to go on the record unchallenged.
The Chair: Thank you. It will now go on the record with comment made.
Mr. Mehta: I was not finished. Again, who does the legislation help? If you look at the groups who do not support the legislation, you are looking at racialized groups. You are looking at working class groups. You are looking at trade unions.
There are, of course, immigrant groups who support the legislation. If you delve into who those groups are, typically they are made up of businesses that work within those communities. This is not legislation that will benefit the average Canadian. It has nothing but a detrimental effect.
With respect to the senator's comments, he has misunderstood something I have said, and I am not sure what that could possibly be.
The Chair: I will put various individuals who wish to make comments on the list and we will try to accommodate everyone's point, but Senator Stratton is intervening at this time out of order because he would like to make a point on something that has already been said.
Senator Stratton: Thank you for allowing me to intervene. I had to go to another meeting briefly.
In my province, Manitoba, 11,000 jobs are going begging. Employers cannot fill them. They have tried. The basic need of the Manitoba economy — the basic needs of Manitobans — is to fill those jobs. This bill will do that.
Are you telling me that we should not fill those jobs? If we cannot fill the jobs now with the existing system, how can you tell me that this new system will prevent those jobs from being filled?
The Chair: All of you want to comment. We will start with Mr. Wong and work our way across the room. I think some wanted to comment on Senator Di Nino's last question. Feel free to intervene with your comments, but try to keep them as succinct as possible, keeping in mind we are not amending the entire Immigration and Refugee Protection Act at this time but only two little sections.
Mr. Wong: I have a brief comment. The immigration changes here do not include any increase in the target range. As I mentioned earlier in my presentation, over the last three years, we have received around 250,000 immigrants every year, so we are at capacity right now.
To address the senator's concern for his home province, if the province is looking for another 11,000 workers, we need to increase the target range. If we increase it from the range of 240,000 to 265,000, which is in the plan for 2008, to maybe 300,000 to 330,000, which is closer to 1 per cent of the population, we would then receive more immigrants and address the situation in Manitoba.
The Chair: Let him finish, Senator Stratton, please.
Senator Stratton: I disagree with you because if that were the case, those jobs would be filled now. The reason they cannot fill the jobs is because applicants are first on the list and they move up accordingly. Therefore, if they are unskilled and cannot fill that job because of their lack of skill, the job stays empty.
The idea is to take those people on the list that are skilled and can fill those jobs and put them into the jobs. That is the intent.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Stratton. I do not want this discussion to turn into a debate between Mr. Wong and Senator Stratton. Any one of you or all of you can disagree with Senator Stratton the same way he can disagree with you, and feel free to express your disagreement. Can you finish up, Mr. Wong?
Mr. Wong: I will finish up that the province of Manitoba has a provincial nominee program, so there is a mechanism there. They only need to increase the numbers that they are willing to accept, even within the provincial nominee program. They can use that program to address the concerns of the senator.
Mr. Mouammar: This issue of skilled workers, I think, is a red herring. Canada has a shortage of doctors. There are 250 Arab doctors from North Africa in Montreal, unemployed. The problem is not that we are not receiving skilled workers. We are receiving them but we do not find jobs for them, so we should deal with that situation. That is the problem.
It is not that we are not receiving the necessary skilled workers. We have 250 doctors unemployed in Montreal, and they speak French and English. They are bilingual.
The Chair: You are right in pointing out that situation to us, but the difficulty is that it is not being dealt with in this legislation.
Mr. Mouammar: I understand, but I am saying, this is a problem. We are bringing the immigrants in with the necessary skills, but then there are no jobs for them so we should deal with that issue.
With regard to the backlog, Mr. Wong has addressed that. The backlog prior to February will not be addressed by this legislation; to solve the new backlog, we increase the quota each year.
The Chair: Thank you. Your point is a good one. If the minister were to exercise her discretion in a way that would solve the problem we have now of doctors being accepted to come here but then are not able to work as doctors when we have a shortage of skilled labour, maybe Senator Stratton and his Manitoba problem would be solved.
Does anyone have any further comment on Senator Stratton or Senator Di Nino before I go to our next questioner?
Mr. Ferreira: Let me say that the system has always seen a backlog. The backlog was not created two years ago or five years ago. I have been in this business for 32 years. It has been dysfunctional; the system has never worked.
I have met many ministers who cared, who stated publicly that they wanted to fix the system. This problem did not happen in 2007 or 2008. It has been before us for a long time.
How did we reach this point? One, we reduced our complement of staff overseas in missions. It does not take rocket scientists to figure out that if we reduce the complement of staff, we will obviously have a bottleneck; a problem meeting the targets, be they Liberal or Conservative targets. At the end of the day, we are not even close to the targets.
A few months ago, the minister indicated she was proud that Canada accepted the largest number of immigrants in the last decades. She indicated that we allowed in 430,000 immigrants. How misleading is that? We did not accept 430,000 immigrants. We accepted approximately 230,000 immigrants and the rest were either students or on work permits.
In the last two years, there was a reduction of 35,000 skilled immigrants. Here we are saying we need skilled immigrants — Manitoba and Alberta need immigrants — and what are we doing? We are reducing the number of immigrants. Yet, politicians go to reception after reception and they tell every community, we need more of you, please send your brothers and sisters. What do we receive? We receive a cut in budgets. Now we are talking about $108 million, I believe, over five years. We are not talking $108 million or $120 million now to fix the problem.
What do we do with the backlog? Do we issue a million letters saying, Thanks but we cannot cope; we will not spend a billion dollars to bring you here in spite of the fact that we need you? We need you but we do not need you?
Two weeks ago, before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, I compared the situation to this one: One of you senators buys a ticket to watch a movie. You are in line, you paid for your ticket and you are patiently waiting to go into the cinema. There are plenty of seats for you. A security guard or the manager comes to you and says, despite the fact you have that ticket, I will not allow you in.
How fair is that? This is the situation we will end up with. Are we to believe that the minister will process 975,000 or a million cases? I do not think so. I think the minister will give instructions to send out letters telling people to give up on Canada. Meanwhile, Canada is saying, we need more people; we need to bring in 300,000.
What do we do with these million-plus cases we have? We fast track them. Most of these people, if they have not had security checks, will have one. Why are security checks taking six months to two years in some cases? The reason is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, CSIS, has maybe two people working on security checks. How can we even come close to bringing in 300,000 people if the bureaucracy is not with us?
If the government wants more people — and I hear it every day — we must do something about it.
The Chair: Thank you.
I will go to the next questioner. Hopefully those of you who wanted to comment on the last question will have an opportunity to comment. We are good at that here. I will go now to Senator Ringuette from New Brunswick who is a member of the steering committee of this committee.
Senator Ringuette: Thank you for coming here and for your comments on the proposed bill.
Labour, labour training and skilled immigrants is an issue that I am familiar with, having completed research on the issue.
Senator Di Nino mentioned earlier that the minister has indicated that she will increase the human resources by $109 million, probably a year, to deal with applications.
The Chair: The indications are, for five years.
Senator Di Nino: Those resources are for areas requiring additional help. I believe it is over a five-year period.
Senator Ringuette: We are looking at probably something around an additional $20 million a year.
My next question is for Mr. Bissett, who has 36 years of experience in the domain. From your experience, Mr. Bissett, this legislation will provide the minister with the ability to delegate selection authority to immigration officers that we have around the world. Is that correct?
Mr. Bissett: Yes.
Senator Ringuette: The minister has indicated that she will increase the budget of those officers by roughly $20 million to receive that delegation from her.
In your 36 years of experience, how many of these immigration officers working abroad are Canadian citizens?
Mr. Bissett: All the officers abroad are Canadian citizens.
Senator Ringuette: All the immigration officers we have abroad are Canadian citizens?
Mr. Bissett: All the visa officers are Canadian citizens, yes. They have in the embassy what are described as ``locally- engaged staff'' from the country concerned.
Senator Ringuette: What do those staff deal with?
Mr. Bissett: They mainly deal with clerical functions and administrative functions. They do not normally have the right to issue visas to anyone. A visa must be issued by a Canadian officer.
Senator Ringuette: They are the front-line people who receive applications and provide the first comments on the file?
Mr. Bissett: Often they are; that is true. They often act as receptionists and will take applications from the public.
Senator Ringuette: In your 36 years of experience with these local officers dealing with immigration applications, have you heard of any bias or any unwarranted comments on those applications?
Mr. Bissett: Through the years, of course, there have been complaints from the public that some of our locally- engaged staff are biased and prejudiced. We have had cases where some of them were involved in fraud and taking money. However, on the whole, those cases are rare.
In Belgrade, I had a case of a locally-engaged person fraudulently involved in taking money. That is the only case that I personally experienced.
It happens.
Senator Ringuette: I am a francophone from northern New Brunswick where there are not a lot of immigrants. We would like more immigrants but there are not a lot of them. I do not deal often with immigration cases. However, I can relate an experience I had last year with a file from a Philippine immigrant in my neck of the woods who wanted to bring her adoptive daughter to Canada.
The local officer that was dealing with the case commented on the application from the daughter that there was some hearsay from the village that it was not her adopted daughter; it was her illegitimate daughter. Therefore, in addition to not being admissible, we should return this woman to the Philippines who is now a Canadian citizen because she made a fraudulent application.
That woman had DNA testing to disprove the hearsay of a local officer.
That is quite an experience.
Mr. Bissett: I understand that, and I am not —
Senator Ringuette: I figure if we increase the number of human resources to deal with minister delegation of receiving applications for immigration situations, we will increase by $20 million a year the payroll of potential local officers to treat their legal citizens that want to emigrate to Canada in this way. From that point of view, I have strong reservations.
I want to move to comments in regard to labour skills. Three years ago, I went across the country to deal with the issue of seasonal workers. I met with workers from Ontario that were working in the farms there. Many of them were from Central and South America. I went to Vancouver to look at the wine-making industry where they also hire foreign workers. The deal between the provincial governments and the federal government in regard to bringing in seasonal workers, particularly in the farming industry, is shameful and it exists.
The conditions they work in are shameful. Some of you said that the deal contributes to reducing the level of pay for potential Canadian workers and that is definitely true, also.
Mr. Chair, I could talk about this issue until midnight. Basically, I agree with what you are saying. We are putting forth an amendment to legislation knowing full well that the intention of the current government is to practise selective immigration to fill low-paying jobs quickly, such as non-unionized trades people, to satisfy certain provincial economies and certain corporations. I welcome your comments.
Mr. Cohen: I agree with what you are saying, senator. You mentioned locally engaged staff at foreign missions. Generally, I have dealt with immigration officers for the better part of 30 years and, as a group, they are highly professional and fair. However, that is as a group. Like all humans, they come in all shapes with different prejudices and biases; and that is human nature.
I included as part of my submission to you a posting from a purported immigration officer on our law firm website, and the feelings of this officer toward immigrants in general. I am entirely satisfied from all the evidence we have that this person is an immigration officer. This officer begins by saying: I have had it; I am so sick and tired of dealing with all these liars, cheats, frauds, et cetera. He goes on to denigrate a specific ethnic community. He concludes by saying, this feels good to rant a bit and I will probably do more of this but for now, I have to deny a few people entry to my country.
The present system is purely objective in the selection of economic immigrants. Once you allow what we had prior, categories like personal suitability where an officer can decide whether someone has anywhere between 0 to 10 points, then biases come into the system. This one officer may have posted something but we do not know what is in people's hearts. No one knows what someone is thinking, and the only way to protect the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act is to make the changes that we agree we need within the act. That is the point I tried to make. It is all doable. Everything that the minister wants — cutting through the backlog and selecting immigrants to come, some before others — is all possible by raising the pass mark and using restrictive occupations. Make a list of what the open occupations are in Canada, and allow people who have experience in those fields to apply. Everything that should be done can be done under the existing legislation.
I want to address the senator from Manitoba now that he is back, with respect to the 11,000 jobs that go wanting in Manitoba. It is possible under the current law to bring people in quickly within a matter of days, weeks, at the most months, on work permits or through arranged employment as a permanent resident under the current system.
It can be done and it is not necessary to give these sweeping powers to the minister to delegate people in the field to pick and choose from the back of the line, the middle of the line or the front of the line. Rather, these powers are an invitation for the biases to come out.
The way to do it would be to use the existing system to fill those jobs. It can be done easily through the provincial nomination program — Manitoba has an excellent one — through the issuance of work permits and through employers hiring people from abroad.
Senator Stratton: The 11,000 jobs are sitting there unfilled, despite all you have said.
Mr. Cohen: Yes.
Senator Stratton: The 11,000 jobs remain vacant and yet you are telling me that the existing system works.
Mr. Cohen: I am telling you absolutely that the 11,000 jobs can be filled under the existing system, assuming that a fair wage is offered.
Senator Stratton: I am talking about highly skilled labour. I was in Thompson, Manitoba, at the Inco mine where they are short of mineworkers. Western Economic Diversification Canada has put money into training people in the regions to work in the mines because Inco cannot find skilled labour. Yet, you are telling me that the existing system works. I beg to differ.
Mr. Cohen: Absolutely, it does work. Work permits are available to work in mines and they can have people there in less than 30 days.
Mr. Mehta: Briefly, in follow up to Mr. Cohen's comments to the senator from Manitoba, a large meat-packing plant in Brandon, Manitoba, is one of the largest in the country. Under the current system, they have been able to fast- track hundreds of workers into that plant. Respectfully, I do not understand the senator's question.
Under the current system, it is possible to bring in workers for those 11,000 highly skilled jobs. There is a potential a dilemma. I hear this dilemma typically from Conservatives: Let the market figure it out. They are not paying them enough and let the market figure it out. Inco might have to increase wages —
Senator Stratton: Is $100,000 per year —
Mr. Mehta: Is this the way it works in the Senate?
The Chair: No, it does not and I apologize for that. You have the floor.
Mr. Mehta: The issue is typically about wages, and if they are not bringing people in, then they are not paying them enough. If Canadian citizens need to be trained, then they can be trained, but typically the wages are not there.
Mr. Wong: Thank you, Senator Ringuette, for your question and intervention. With regard to the temporary foreign workers, Canada uses a business model or a just-in-time labour model to recruit and commodify low-skilled labour.
We recommend in our presentation that we need a visionary immigration policy, one that provides the path to legal status and citizenship. The current Canadian experience class allows international students and high-skilled temporary foreign workers a path, but it does not allow this path for low-skilled temporary foreign workers.
Senators, in my presentation today, I submit to you that the immigration amendments in Bill C-50 have nothing to do with the 2008 budget. I urge senators to consider the recommendations of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to sever these amendments from Bill C-50. You still must consider the Employment Insurance changes as well, but the rest of the budget bill can proceed. We can have national consultation on the immigration changes.
Mr. Ferreira: Mr. Cohen was correct when he said that IRPA works fine. My belief is that it is not working the way it should have been working because decisions taken in Ottawa, respecting whoever was in power during these last few years, have made it dysfunctional. The system has not been allowed to function, and that is why I said it is dysfunctional.
I have hundreds of highly skilled clients dying to go to Manitoba. The senator from Manitoba says that the system is broken because we have 11,000 unfilled jobs and we should allow these people to come forward to Canada. The senator from Ontario was talking about nation building. We are all for nation building. You are nation builders and our ancestors were nation builders.
However, when we hear a comment about how we cannot fill these jobs and then we hear the arguments advanced, it is mind-boggling. We have a million-plus people out there who would and could fill these jobs gladly. However, they are not allowed to come forward.
I think Mr. Pang referred to an individual who is highly qualified somewhere in the Middle East. He has been waiting for six years. Chances are he will give up on Canada. We do not make it easy for immigrants. We make it difficult. That is what I said in my submission.
I am glad that today we heard the example of the 1 per cent of Chinese coming to Canada. Two weeks ago I heard 10 per cent, and I indicated that was scare-mongering and the claims were bogus. Imagine 130 million Chinese at our door. It could not be done. I do not mean anything by that comment. I am saying that, regardless of whether they are Chinese or Ethiopians, we could not handle them.
Our current system is broken. I agree with all the senators who believe our system is broken. However, I think you are putting a lot of faith in this minister who is telling you: Trust me. I will fix it.
Senator Di Nino: Yes, we are.
The Chair: Senator Ringuette, you have the floor. You might have forgotten that.
Senator Ringuette: In browsing the Internet, I found a few law firm sites. I do not know how many of you are lawyers. These firms deal with immigration processing and employment brokering. They advertise Canadian jobs and then use those non-filled jobs to go to Human Resources and Social Development Canada, provincial labour departments and Citizenship and Immigration Canada to say, we do not have the Canadians to fill these jobs. That is one arm of that firm.
The other arm of the firm asks for working visas for people they want to migrate to Canada.
Do any of you know of this kind of scheme?
Mr. Cohen: I will try to address it for you. I am not sure what the scheme is. Can you explain it again?
Senator Ringuette: For Citizenship and Immigration Canada to issue a working visa, they must receive acknowledgement from the labour department —
Mr. Cohen: Service Canada, right.
Senator Ringuette: — from HRSDC that no Canadian can fill the jobs they advertised.
Mr. Cohen: Correct.
Senator Ringuette: They use that certification to go to Citizenship and Immigration Canada and apply for a working visa for immigrants that have those skills.
Mr. Cohen: Correct. The way you described it is how it works.
Senator Ringuette: Do you know of these firms that, on the one hand, are law firms dealing with immigration cases and, on the other hand, they are also labour placement agencies?
Mr. Cohen: I do not know of any law firms that act as labour placement agencies and as law firms. However, the normal process you described is just that. First, Service Canada must be satisfied that the foreign worker coming into Canada will be neutral or positive to the Canadian labour market. Only at that point can one apply for a work permit.
The Chair: We have seven minutes remaining and Senator Murray has not had an opportunity to ask any questions.
Senator Di Nino: I must say something important. Mr. Cohen has given us a good presentation, which I think was clouded by what he calls his foreign website posting.
There is an awful statement here by somebody who he suggests purports to be a Canadian immigration officer. That is not proven. There is absolutely no way that we know it is genuine. For all I know, it may be a hoax, or it may be genuine. If it is genuine, I think we should do something about it, and we have rules and laws to do so.
However, Mr. Cohen putting it on the record here with its racial commentary is inappropriate. It is not right for someone to say, I think I received this from an immigration officer and this is what it says.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Di Nino. Mr. Cohen, I will give you an opportunity to comment after our next speaker because I think it is unfair if each senator does not have an opportunity, if he or she wishes, to pose a question.
The next senator is Senator Murray, a former chair of this committee.
Senator Murray: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The question we always struggle with here in parliamentary forums is how much power we want to delegate to cabinets, ministers, bureaucrats and so forth.
I do not know where I come down on that issue with regard to this bill. We cannot micromanage immigration policy from Parliament. On the other hand, plenty of bills before us give what I regard as excessive regulatory power, not only to the cabinet but also sometimes to individual ministers. I am inclined to look at these delegations sceptically.
Second, I agree with those people who say that these provisions have no place in a budget implementation bill. I know there was a page or two in the budget plan. I read it. It related to immigration policy.
The reason these provisions are in this bill is because of a long-standing tendency of governments to throw everything but the kitchen sink into a budget implementation bill with the hope that the more controversial provisions will pass because there are other more attractive provisions that must be passed, or a time line made for them.
If the House of Commons decides to split the bill, that is it. If they vote against splitting the bill, I do not think there is much point in us splitting it and sending it back. It would simply be a provocation. I would be for splitting it, and I would vote for splitting it if I were over there.
Mr. Bissett, the point Mr. Cohen made is important. He made that statement in his written statement and he made it again a few minutes ago: The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act already contains mechanisms to regulate the flow of immigrants. He has mentioned those mechanisms; for example, raising the pass mark through IRPA regulation 76(2).
The minister may also make use of restricted occupations as provided for in regulation 73 and 75(2). Finally, the present legislation allows for arranged employment in Canada.
Mr. Bissett, you are an expert in these matters. Is Mr. Cohen's point a valid? I ask you the question because when you were speaking — and it is not in your written notes — I think I heard you say there would have been other ways in which the government could achieve the objectives it purports to achieve with this bill.
Can you comment on Mr. Cohen's presentation and, if you can, also indicate the other ways that the government can achieve these objectives?
Mr. Bissett: Yes; I am not a lawyer, but I think the key here is that the minister wanted to change the word ``shall'' to ``may,'' which then gives the minister or the department the authority to be much more flexible in the selection of the new applicants that come.
I cannot presume to know why they felt it was necessary to make this change. However, if the minister has all the power she now needs, I think it highly unusual that the Department of Justice lawyers would say that she should come forward with this change in the act.
Under the former immigration —
Senator Murray: I do not want to go into motivations, but it raises a question as to whether the objectives that she states are truly the objectives that she seeks to achieve.
Mr. Bissett: I cannot comment either on her motives, but I think this change in the regulations that are proposed is one way of dealing with this enormous problem we have of too many people in the world that are able to meet our selection criteria. If they meet it, under the current legislation, they must be accepted. This change is one way of dealing with it. There may be others, but why she has chosen this way, I have no idea.
Senator Murray: I will leave it at that unless Mr. Cohen wants to comment further.
Mr. Cohen: This is my opinion. First, everything the minister wants to do can be accomplished under the current act. Second, this matter is 100 per cent an immigration one, and yet it is put forward as part of a budget implementation bill, so I question the good faith surrounding the change.
What is the motivation for the change? As far as I am concerned, it is political in nature. It is a dare. It is a dare to the Liberal Party, whose constituency for a long time has been newly arriving Canadians, to say: Vote against this change if it is against your principles or vote with us. In you vote with us, you are not acting in the best interests of the constituency you have come to depend upon.
In my opinion, the motivation is a political one because everything can be accomplished under the current act. Again, in my opinion, this political manoeuvre is being played on the backs of immigrants.
Mr. Wong: Briefly, I want to follow up on Mr. Cohen's comment. I urge the Senate to give second thought to these proposed changes. In the year 2000, the House of Commons passed a Citizenship Act, and it was held up by the Senate because there were problems with it. It did not go through, so I ask you to use your powers in the best interests of the immigrant communities and for all Canadians.
The Chair: Mr. Cohen, I promised you that I would give you an opportunity to comment on Senator Di Nino's intervention earlier. Following that, Senator Stratton will have the last word at this session.
Mr. Cohen: I appreciate it. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I will keep it brief.
I understand that you are not satisfied that this message comes from the Canadian immigration officer.
Senator Di Nino: Absolutely not, sir. That is not what I said.
Mr. Cohen: I, on the other hand, am satisfied, given the evidence that I have available to me. The point is not with respect to this particular officer. The point is having a system that allows for personal biases to have an effect on the decisions that are made with regard to the selection of applicants.
We all have personal biases. What is important is to have a system that says: I do not care what your personal bias is; the points are such and such, and you are entitled to those points and they are purely objective, no matter what you may feel personally about a particular individual, group of individuals or community. That is my point with respect to having submitted this information.
Senator Di Nino: I think it offends a whole series of people.
Senator Stratton: I find it difficult to listen to you say that the system works when in Western Canada — Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta — there is a desperate need for skilled labour and it cannot be found.
The problem we have, or will face over the next five years, is that the baby boomers are retiring, and the need will be even more desperate. I fail to see how you can tell me that the system works. If it worked, we would not have this problem with skilled labour.
I will name the example — for example, Mr. Mehta, I think you made the comment; pay them more. A miner in Thompson, Manitoba, working in the mine, can earn six figures a year; and the miner also receives a bonus of a year's salary. That incentive to work in the mine is huge. Companies are still having trouble finding skilled labour in those mines, to the extent that Western Economic Diversification Canada, WED, as I told you, is setting up a training program in Thompson, in the local community, to try and train people to work in those mines, so they too can participate in these opportunities and are guaranteed a good salary.
How do you explain to me, if the system works as it is, the desperate need for people in those three provinces? How do you explain that? I cannot comprehend.
Mr. Wong: I will be brief. We are already at capacity now, senator. There are 250,000 immigrants coming in every year for the last three years with the existing set of resources that we have. If you want to address the labour shortages that we see in Western Canada, in B.C. and the Prairie provinces, you need to increase the target rates. You need to bring in more people to address these shortages. There is really no other way.
Even if we were to accept all these proposed amendments, we will still accept the same 250,000 people. The amendments will not address the shortages in these other provinces.
Mr. Ferreira: I personally did not hear any of the witnesses indicate that the system works. To the contrary, the system is broken, so I am not sure why the senator assumes that some of us here have indicated that the system works. The system is broken. It has been broken for 32 years. I have been in and out of government for 32 years and the system has always been broken.
When I hear you say that we, somebody here, indicated that the system works, who said that? Nobody is saying that it works. If it worked, it is not allowed to work for political reasons. That is the problem.
There is another example, the Immigration and Refugee Board, IRB. My colleague to the right sat on the IRB — it used to be the Immigration Appeal Board, IAB, before. Over 65 positions have not been filled for years. Shame on the Canadian government; shame on anybody who claims that the system is perfect. It is not perfect. It is not working.
We want a change, but we want this system to be allowed to work. We have no appeal mechanism at the IRB. The appeals division that they envisioned some six or seven years ago does not exist. At the same time, we are saying that the system is broken. It sure is broken. Subsequent governments have allowed it to be broken, and there is a political reason why this is broken.
The Chair: Is the IRB the Immigration and Refugee Board?
Mr. Ferreira: Yes; I can go on. Citizenship judges — how many citizenship appointments should have been made in the last five to ten years? People are waiting over a year for citizenship. We welcome them and say they qualify for citizenship, but we do not have enough citizenship judges. We must appoint another 60 or 80 across the country. It is the same thing with the IRB.
Let us not forget that one third of the overseas complement of staff was slashed six years ago. One third of our staff went bye bye. Why was that staff cut: to balance the books; it was a financial exercise. The government of the day wanted to tighten that belt. How do they do that? They go to each department and take a little bit from here and a little bit from there.
I have visited these posts overseas. I do not know how many of you have. As a former senior immigration officer, I know that many of my former colleagues are frustrated with the system. If they were before you here today, they would tell you this system has never worked, never, because politicians do not allow it to work.
Mr. Bissett: I agree: The system is not working and this effort to fix it is the proper way to go. If the issue goes back to the immigration committee, it will be lost in the night of time. It will be another two years before these regulations are changed.
To address the point of the senator from Manitoba, one reason we are not receiving skilled workers, apart from the provincial sponsorship, is that many highly skilled tradesmen are unable to meet our selection criteria, which puts a great deal of emphasis on education. Many miners, carpenters, and cabinet makers do not have a hope of meeting the current selection criteria so they do not apply. If they apply, they are turned down.
The second reason, in my opinion, is that most of our immigrants today come from Asian countries. They tend to go to two cities, Vancouver and Toronto, because those cities are where their fellow countrymen and extended families live. Few Asians are willing to go to Thompson to work in the mines. Statistics show that 16 per cent of Canada's population is made up of visible minorities but 60 per cent of those 16 per cent live in two cities, Vancouver and Toronto. Manitoba, like the other Prairie provinces, is competing with two or maybe three major urban centres.
Senator Stratton: I was in The Pas, Manitoba, where I saw a delivery guy who spoke with an English accent. He was from England. I know trucking outfits in southern Manitoba are bringing in drivers from England, but there are not enough. The waiting line will not allow enough drivers to come in.
Mr. Ferreira: I suggest that a third of our complement of immigrants is skilled. We have refugees and family class so, to be fair, if we take in 230,000 immigrants, we do not take in 230,000 skilled workers.
Mr. Mouammar: I want to follow up on Mr. Ferreira's comments. At one time, the refugee board had a backlog so they increased the number of members to 120 in the Toronto area, and the backlog disappeared. Later, there was an idea to solve this problem by restricting the number of refugees, so they brought in an agreement called, Canada-U.S. Safe Third Country Agreement. That meant anyone who lands in the States first and then comes to Canada would be thrown back to the States. Recently, the Federal Court said this is against the Charter.
Now, we have a backlog because the number of members on the board is down to 60. Even though we had fewer refugees during this period of the safe third country agreement, because the number of members was reduced, we have a backlog in the refugee system again.
We should not do something that the Charter will find unconstitutional, as Mr. Mehta said. However, that might take 20 years. In the meantime, many people will have been victimized by this process.
We do not question the intentions of the minister. The minister might have good intentions now, but what is the guarantee that the immigration officers and the ministers of the future will not have biases based on the country of origin, race, gender and religion of applicants. We need an objective system in place, which exists in the current legislation, rather than a subjective system based on individual preferences.
The Chair: Thank you all for your comments. A number of references have been made to our system. Mr. Bissett, I believe, said that our system of points was copied by the Australians. He also said that education might be a barrier in the current system. Am I correct in assuming that if this bill passes, the discretion is given to the minister to instruct the department not to follow that system any longer but to follow some other system? Will those instructions be published in the Canada Gazette? Is that your understanding?
Mr. Ferreira: Yes.
Mr. Bissett: It is my understanding.
The Chair: The regulation process that existed previously with the point system might not continue, depending on what the minister decides in her instructions to the department?
Mr. Cohen: That is correct. The minister's opinion will be substituted for the regulations.
The Chair: That is correct.
Mr. Cohen: That is correct.
The Chair: The regulation process has its checks and balances.
Mr. Cohen: That is absolutely correct.
The Chair: That is not what is contemplated here.
Mr. Ferreira: That is democratic.
Mr. Bissett: I am not sure that is correct. It is clear in the amendments that the minister's so-called instructions will come in the form of order-in-council.
The Chair: No, I do not think so, sir.
Mr. Cohen: It does not say that.
The Chair: Thank you for your comments. Those of you who provided us with written background material, we appreciate that information as well. We will have it translated in both official languages and circulated to our members. Additional comments may be sent to the clerk of the committee.
The committee adjourned.