Délibérations du Comité sénatorial permanent des
Affaires étrangères et du commerce international
Fascicule 1 - Témoignages du 21 novembre 2013
OTTAWA, Thursday, November 21, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 10:30 a.m. to examine the subject-matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4 and 16 of Part 3 of Bill C-4, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we're ready to begin. Today, the Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is continuing its examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4 and 16 of Part 3 of Bill C-4, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013, and other measures.
This morning we will hear from a panel that will address Division 16, which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We welcome to our committee, on behalf of the Canadian Bar Association, Tamra Thomson, Director, Legislation and Law Reform, and Mario Bellissimo, Chair, Immigration Law Section. They are before us here in the Senate.
On behalf of Engineers Canada, we have Mr. Kim Allen, Chief Executive Officer. Welcome.
On behalf of Merit Nova Scotia, Mr. Michael Kydd, President, is here by way of video conference. Welcome.
Professor Christopher Worswick, Professor and Vice-Chair, Department of Economics, Carleton University, is also here. Welcome to all of our panelists. I believe we will begin with the Canadian Bar Association, and then we will follow with Mr. Allen, Mr. Kydd and Professor Worswick, if that is acceptable to the panelists.
I will turn to Ms. Thomson to start. Welcome.
Tamra Thomson, Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association: Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable senators. We're pleased to appear before you today, on behalf of the Immigration Law Section of the Canadian Bar Association, on Division 16, Part 3, of the brick otherwise known as Bill C-4.
The Canadian Bar Association is a national association representing over 37,000 members across Canada, and part of our mandate is to help in the improvement of the law and the administration of justice. It's in that rubric that we have examined the part of the bill that you are looking at today.
The members of the Immigration Law Section comprise lawyers whose practices embrace all aspects of immigration and refugee law in Canada.
You have received a letter that we prepared on the division, and I will ask Mr. Bellissimo to address the concerns that we have raised.
Mario Bellissimo, Chair, Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association: Good morning to you, Madam Chair and honourable senators. The changes in immigration law have been fast and furious. There is an old saying, ``In the face of winds of change, the pessimist complains about the wind, the optimist expects it to change, and the realist adjusts the sails.'' To this end, we will optimistically suggest adjustments.
There is no doubt that the EOI system is a game changer and carries with it very exciting possibilities. Efforts to modernize, adapt and adjust the selection system for economic class immigrants are important, and the CBA section commends the government for doing so in a proactive way. However, the CBA has steadfastly objected to omnibus legislation like Bill C-4. Enacting important changes to diverse and unrelated acts in a single bill limits meaningful comment and debates. The issue is compounded in immigration law because of a growing reliance on ministerial instructions at the expense of parliamentary oversight. Here, there will be no mechanism to reconsider the EOI system once the amendments are made because key decision-making will be undertaken by ministerial instruction. Ministerial instruction cannot be reviewed by Parliament and is not subject to judicial review.
The powers vested in the minister are significant. To highlight a few points — and I will try to move through these fairly quickly — proposed subsection 10.3(1) affords the minister 12 additional powers, including the authority to define classes and criteria eligible for participation. In proposed subsection 10.3(5), the minister can, by instruction, provide for criteria that are more stringent than current criteria or requirements under any other division in the act. This is extremely broad language. Proposed subsection 10.4 allows the minister to disclose private information to an undefined entity. We heard yesterday from senior government officials that those entities might, in fact, be the provinces and the territories. If so, it should specifically state it in the legislation.
Proposed subsection 91(5) allows the minister to designate a body the authority to represent or advise a person for consideration in connection with submissions of an EOI. So the details are critical. We set out 10 questions in our submission that seek clarification on a myriad of issues, including eligibility, consultation periods, who these various entities are and what, if any, fees will be imposed in carrying out the EOI system. Further still, the automated system, which will, in our understanding, undertake the eligibility assessment, has yet to be developed and the costing model is still being developed. The costs of the system are not before a committee studying a budget bill.
For these reasons, sufficient time to study these amendments should be extended to stakeholders — including subject matter experts such as the Canadian Bar Association — that share an interest in the successful implementation of immigration delivery and processing.
Other measures could be considered in the interim, such as a pilot project, for example, launched for a select number of applicants in a specific category. This would allow for the collection of empirical data, and then we could be in a stronger position to conduct meaningful assessments.
Senators, predictability and transparency are critical. Immigration applicants are as worried about the certainty of selection as they are about long processing times and employment opportunities. Although we understand the need for flexibility, timeliness and proactivity, predictability of the system is fundamental to attracting the best applicants, and it does not have to be an either/or scenario. The changes to the Canadian Experience Class, with overnight introduction of caps and ineligible occupations, are a recent example of ministerial instructions exercised without notice, to the detriment of certain applicants.
People plan their lives around the possibility of immigrating to Canada and commit to working or studying in Canada, subject to meeting certain selection criteria. Selection criteria can be responsive to labour market needs without being a moving target. Given the importance of this legislation and given that a just-in-time immigration system is in everyone's best interest, it is unclear why we are moving forward with this legislation when the program is unclear as to several details.
Leaving incredible scope and implementation to ministerial instructions opens this initiative, regardless of political party, to serious criticisms and concerns regarding transparency, lack of parliamentary oversight and potential politicization of the program. The CBA section, therefore, makes two key, general recommendations. First, it recommends that the passage of these significant legislative amendments be delayed and that additional time be set out for consultation and examination with stakeholders, including subject matter experts like the CBA, on the impact of potential legal issues as we have more detail and more substance. Second, that, insofar as the amendments proceed with ministerial instructions, the legislation reflects that ministerial instructions will be submitted for parliamentary scrutiny and public debate before they are implemented.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in testifying before the House of Commons committee, also indicated this is a drastic change, an important change, and it is an exciting change. From the CBA's perspective, it would be unfortunate if it were undermined because we're moving forward in this factual vacuum.
I thank you for your time and consideration.
Michael Kydd, President, Merit Nova Scotia: Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable senators. I bring greetings from the beautiful province of Nova Scotia and as well from Merit Nova Scotia's national president, Terrance Oakey. Merit of Canada was established in 2008 as a united national voice for open-shop construction associations. Our 3,500 member companies directly employ over 60,000 Canadians, and our member organizations administer the largest multi-employer benefit program in Canada's construction industry. We will continue to work with government and other stakeholders on issues such as open tendering and immigration reform.
I'm honoured to be speaking about Division 16, Part 3, which would amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Earlier this week, I addressed your honourable colleagues before the House of Commons' Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I will therefore keep my comments brief. I'm happy to provide any follow-up information to you or your staff.
Over the next decade, Canada's construction industry will have to attract at least 320,000 workers or face serious shortages in the labour supply. The amendments as they relate to the expression of interest model will be necessary to augment the human resources of the construction industry by immigrants with the required skills necessary and experience.
It is estimated that Alberta alone will need 115,000 additional workers in skilled trades over the next ten years. In Nova Scotia, while this may seem elementary compared to the aggregate data, we will need to fill 7,000 construction jobs over the next decade. You can see there's a bit of a trend. I'm talking about certainly the importance of having a system in place that will address these needs and some of the successes that I will follow up with.
For this reason, Merit Nova Scotia supports the EOI model. We believe the program will improve the quality of skilled workers with the pre-application stage followed by an application by invitation only to the best candidates. These candidates will not only provide vital information about their skills and experience, but they will be ranked, sorted, searched and processed in an expedited manner. With proper controls in place, the amendments to the act make sense and provide a fluid response for skilled migrants interested in permanently working and living in Canada.
Of course, we are fortunate to have models of success to follow. In Australia, for example, a focus on skilled migration has been very successful in terms of positive employment outcomes for skilled migrants, with a 95 per cent workforce participation rate and a 98 per cent workforce participation rate for the employer nominated in other sponsored categories. Post-global economic crisis, the employer-sponsored category of the skilled migration program skill-stream has been steadily rising, comprising around 37 per cent of the skill-stream in 2011-12. The greatest percentage rise in population occurred in resource- and construction-rich Western Australia. The population grew by 78,000, or 3.3 per cent. Carpenters were the biggest group taking up residency, followed by engineers, project administrators, electricians, plumbers, architects and motor mechanics.
In New Zealand, there was a net gain of 7,900 skilled migrants. The ministry there expects a strong net migration gain of about 20,000 by the end of 2013, compared with a net loss of 3,200 in the previous year. Last year, there was a 2 per cent increase in the number of essential skills workers, the first annual rise since the start of the global economic slowdown.
Finally, the largest intake of skilled migration to both of these countries is from China, where more than 24 million people currently work in the construction industry.
We believe the picture is clear. The EOI system is working in these industrialized economies because there has been a renewed focus on efficiency and skill demand in their immigration models. No policy reform is perfect. Measuring their successes through immigration and growth can only be a positive lesson for our country and our respective industries to follow.
Honourable senators, again I thank you for taking the time to listen to my presentation. I proudly represent our association and I'm happy to answer any of your questions.
Kim Allen, Chief Executive Officer, Engineers Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. My name is Kim Allen and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Engineers Canada.
Engineers Canada is the national body that represents the 12 provincial and territorial regulators of the engineering profession. Their mandate is to protect and serve the public interest. Our constituent associations represent 260,000 members of the engineering profession. Our members, the regulators, help keep Canadians safe by making sure that licensed engineers are held to the highest standards of engineering education, professional qualification and professional practice.
I'm pleased to have the opportunity today to discuss with you how the proposed expression of interest system will, in our view, help bridge the gap for employers of engineers who are looking for engineers with experience and specialized skills.
Our 2012 labour market study reveals that, in most Canadian jurisdictions, there will be a shortage of engineers with five to ten years of experience or specialized skills over the next ten years. Although there are currently 70,000 undergrad engineering students in accredited engineering programs across Canada and more than 23,000 in masters and PhD programs, it's not necessarily sufficient to meet the anticipated future demand, particularly given employers' preference for experienced engineers. An effective immigration system that helps to identify candidates for immigration and that helps to meet the needs of industry and business that employ engineers will help address this anticipated shortage.
Statistics Canada reported that 42 per cent of all immigrants have a university degree and that 52 per cent of those degrees are in engineering. In 2012, for example, an immigration pool of 38,000 individuals claimed to have engineering credentials, and more than 20 per cent of the engineering profession in Canada are already internationally trained engineers.
Our constituent associations process over 5,500 applications annually from immigrants, and this is the highest among the regulated professions. The question of how to effectively address and licence engineers educated overseas has been top of mind for our members for some time. We have shown leadership in foreign credential recognition and continue to innovate in how we assess foreign credentials.
In reviewing the elements of Bill C-4 that pertain to the expression of interest system, I noted that proposed section 10.3(1)(e) authorizes the minister to issue instructions regarding eligibility criteria. I am hopeful that the criteria will include a reference to the need for those who wish to work in a regulated profession to demonstrate that they are taking the steps to qualify for licensure.
For our part, the engineering profession is already trying to help individuals with the right qualifications to be as licence-ready as they possibly can before arriving in Canada. Most regulators will accept paperwork prior to an individual arriving in Canada. Academic, work experience and reference assessments can start once the required documentation is received. Existing language requirements for the purpose of immigration support the language proficiency needed to become a professional engineer. Increased flexibility about how and when the professional practice exam is taken will continue to be explored.
We are continuing to develop the best practices for engineering regulators, embracing competency-based assessment and developing a Canadian framework for licensure, which is a dynamic model of regulation that will help the regulators enhance their ability to regulate the practise of professional engineering and to better serve and protect the public interest.
Engineers Canada believes that there is value for the economy and the engineering profession in better engaging employers in the immigration process and making sure that those with the skills needed here are the most quickly moved through the system efficiently. A modern, responsive immigration system will better integrate immigrants into our economy and society.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you today. I would be very happy to take any of your questions.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Allen. I will now turn to our final panellist, Professor Worswick.
Christopher Worswick, Professor and Vice-Chair, Department of Economics, Carleton University, as an individual: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak. I think this is a very interesting and potentially very useful change to immigration policy in Canada.
I will give you my background, very briefly. I am an economist. I have worked on the economics of immigration as one of my main research areas for the last 20 years. I am particularly interested in skilled immigrant selection. I try to understand the effectiveness of things like the point system.
I've done a little bit of work recently on expression-of-interest systems, so I am familiar with them and I think they have a lot to commend them. My understanding is that it was first introduced in New Zealand and has subsequently been introduced in Australia. However, I don't think there has been a lot of empirical evidence yet carried out on its effectiveness. So I'll just talk about it in terms of broad theoretical reasons why this would be a good move for Canada.
As the backgrounder piece outlines well, this gives us the opportunity to prioritize stronger applicants within the immigration pool. One thing that has been well documented in Canada has been the growing backlog, at least until recently, of applicants under the point system — reaching numbers like 600,000 and 800,000, depending on when you look at it.
My understanding is that the government has moved to reduce that number. I don't believe it has been completely eliminated yet, but I think that backlog has placed us at a competitive disadvantage relative to countries like Australia, which has had much faster processing times. Anecdotally, in talking to immigrants, immigrants very often will apply to more than one potential receiving country. Very often they will go to the first place that processes their application, if they're primarily moving on economic criteria. So this potentially has the opportunity for us to get a larger share of the strong applicants for immigration.
The other thing that is maybe worth pointing out is that while we tend to focus on countries like Australia and New Zealand, there is a growing number of competing OECD and other countries looking for highly skilled immigrants. Countries that really have not had much interest in having a large immigration programs based on their cultural or demographic situations see the benefits that highly skilled immigrants can make to their economies, even just simply in terms of the fiscal impact. Highly successful people pay a lot of taxes, and they don't tend to collect a lot of benefits. Just in simple accounting terms, it's clear there are potentially strong benefits.
I think this point has already been made, but I see benefits to employers from this type of expression-of-interest system. The fact that this kind of electronic system could be in place means that employers looking for skilled workers outside of Canada could have a means of searching more effectively. That's another strength, and that's something that I would encourage resources to be put into developing.
I will raise two concerns to conclude. The first concern is — and I think this was raised by one of the earlier speakers — a loss of transparency. One of the advantages of the current point system is that applicants have a good understanding of what the threshold is and what they need in order to be successful. That's a strength of the Canadian approach to skilled immigrant selection, and something that should be continued.
For clearly strong applicants, maybe we should be publishing when they will automatically be invited. Within the point system, if the threshold is, say, 63 points, maybe for applicants with 68 points or higher — or some number like that — there is an automatic invitation to apply. I would encourage that transparency be a key feature of this system.
The last comment relates to the emphasis on employers in this system. I was one of the first economists in the academic area to start pushing in Canada for a growing role for employers, but I think there is a risk that the pendulum could swing too far. Historically, employers have not had a significant role in skilled immigrant selection in Canada. That's changing very rapidly. On the one hand, the strength of employers is that they can use very effective evaluations of foreign educational credentials and work experience that's difficult to build into a point system. But on the other hand, we have to recognize that employers' interests may not jibe perfectly with the country's interests.
There is a lot of evidence that highly skilled immigration is the way for Canada to go. Employers pushing for low- skilled immigrants — we have to question exactly what are the benefits that are coming from that.
I will stop there. I'm happy to try to answer questions.
The Chair: Thank you, professor. I do have a list now.
Senator Dawson: First of all, thank you, all the witnesses, including our colleague in Nova Scotia.
Mr. Bellissimo, the omnibus part of this legislation — some of my colleagues on the other side will say we used to do that, too, and yes, we did. I thought it was wrong; I'm on the record saying it was wrong at that time, because it does limit the role of sober second thought in having witnesses in front of the chamber in which we can comment for hours if we want. But in reality, the possibility of amending, changing, improving or giving this more teeth or less teeth is not going to happen. We will be reporting to the Minister of Finance, because, even though it's immigration related or passport related, this is a finance bill. As senators, our capability of voting against a budget bill is limited by history.
That's the big picture.
I agree with you on the process; I think the process is flawed. That being said, I do agree with most of what's in the legislation. I think that, as it is presented, these are basic improvements to the legislation.
One thing you did not comment on, and I would like your opinion on — the bar side of it — is the transfer of passports and the office and responsibility to immigration. You did not comment in this letter. Do you have an opinion on that part of the process? I'll take you one at a time.
Mr. Bellissimo: Given the time we were allowed to respond to the legislation, we obviously had to choose which area of the legislation we were going to comment on. As such, we limited our comments to Part 3, Division 16.
I've heard the other witnesses' testimony on the passport transfer. From hearing that testimony, I understand that the costs and the costing of that transfer are not before this committee, but beyond that I have nothing else to offer at this stage.
Senator Dawson: As you know, we didn't get a very clear answer on what the budgetary side of this issue is, even though it's a budget bill, the answers were — I hope we will get more details, Madam Chair.
Mr. Allen, you have mentioned claiming to have engineering credentials. I noticed in your remarks you said the number of people who are ``claiming to be engineers.'' That comment was added obviously because you must recognize, or you must have found, that some of them are not. If so, what percentage of those who claim to be engineers passed your test of engineering?
Mr. Allen: There are really two levels. The number was the 38,000. Those are the ones where there is some type of engineering degree, diploma — whatever they have coming into it — yet our constituent associations only see about 5,500 of that broad 38,000 who apply. The success rate of those 5,500 who apply is in the 80 to 85 per cent range in terms of those who are either able to instantly meet the Canadian academic requirements or, with a little bit of work and writing a couple of exams — taking a course or two — can meet it. There is a high success rate of those who apply.
Part of our concern is that a big percentage of them don't apply, and the engineering profession often ends up being criticized that we don't recognize credentials. It is very hard for our constituent associations to recognize credentials if people don't apply.
Senator Downe: We have all had a taxi driver who complained about the fact that his engineering degree was not recognized by the Canadian association. They applied as engineers. Five thousand of them went through the process, but all of the other ones — I'm jokingly saying they're driving taxis or doing something else — applied because they were engineers and were fast-tracked because they were engineers. In the end, after they are here, after they have gained status, they stop being engineers and the system lets them go through?
Mr. Allen: Even for Canadian graduates, engineering education is a very broad education. There are lots of people who might practise engineering and then go off into running other businesses or doing a number of things. The actual statistics are that, for people who actually graduate with an engineering degree, by the time they reach mid-career, only about 35 per cent continue to practise engineering.
Internationally, that wouldn't be any different. You would have those types of people who are bright and have a degree and whose interest may have gone into it. Under the existing system, we think people are coming here to perhaps practise engineering. They are actually getting points because they have a degree as opposed to a match to coming in to practise engineering.
If you're looking to fill the gap or the shortage, we see that matching up the fact that they are going to meet the requirements of licensure and that that's what they want to do is a better match than saying, ``You have an engineering degree. It means you may want to practice engineering when you come here.'' They may want to run another business or do whatever other types of things.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My first questions are for Mr. Allen.
Mr. Allen, can you begin by telling us how many of your engineers originally hail from outside the country? And you touched on this, but do you think the bill will increase the number of foreign engineers practising their profession in Canada?
In your brief, on the bottom of page 4, you indicate that, according to Statistics Canada, 42 per cent of immigrants have a university degree and 52 per cent of those degrees are in engineering. I would like to know how many of the engineers who currently belong to your association are foreign. No statistics.
[English]
Mr. Allen: Across Canada, slightly over 20 per cent of that 260,000 were trained abroad. We may not necessarily track, but it's pretty close to the same number actually born abroad that go into it. You have different jurisdictions, so Ontario and British Columbia have a much higher percentage. About 38 per cent of the 80,000 that are in Ontario were born internationally. You have other parts of the country where that hasn't happened. Those numbers have been fairly consistent over the years that you keep going in. Both Ontario and B.C. have had a number of years, over the last decade, in which they have actually licensed more internationally trained than domestically trained people.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I thought I saw that one of your main functions is to advise foreign engineers on how to practice the engineering profession in Canada. In that capacity, do you have the necessary resources to accommodate more internationally trained engineers?
[English]
Mr. Allen: Yes, we do. Last year, we launched a coming-to-Canada/working-in-Canada website — newcomers.engineerscanada.ca — with support from the federal government that put it in place. It really gives people a road map of what's required.
Engineers, if they actually understand the process, even though sometimes it may be complicated, are actually very good at working their way through. They have very clear paths for how to do it.
That tool includes going online to as many as we have; there are about 8,000 different engineering programs around the world that we actually have in a database. Somebody can click on it and find out where their engineering degree matches up, in relative terms, to a Canadian degree. We're members of the Washington Accord. They recognize ``substantially equivalent,'' and there are 17 different signatories. If they get their degrees accredited by those ones, Canada's degrees are recognized and would be in the same level as those from those various countries. We've had such experience with so many other countries that people can actually get a good indication that they're going to have to do some additional training.
The engineering education in Canada tends to be broader than in many other countries. Many countries go narrower and may go deeper than we do in Canada. People can take some additional courses, and we encourage them to take them in their home country before they immigrate. If they can understand what they need to become licensed and are interested in doing those ones, we give them guidance along with all those ones.
As for the individual assessments that would be put in place with that, we would look at providing that type of support system, and so, whether the assessment happens now or later, it would be put in place. We are working with our 12 constituent associations to ensure that, once we do an assessment, the assessment is not only good for immigration but also for licensure. It's not a separate assessment giving you credits for immigration. It must also give you the appropriate ones to tell you where you actually stand in that academic requirement for licensure.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My last question is for Mr. Kydd. I will try to speak slowly to give the interpreter enough time to translate my question.
Mr. Kydd, you mentioned that you were very much in need of foreign engineers, meaning foreign workers. You gave a figure that struck me as quite high: 320,000 workers. Do you think the new system could potentially give rise to fraud, for example, cases in which fake or real employers would obtain a positive labour market opinion and then select friends or individuals to pay them money in order to be chosen? Or does that not concern you at all?
[English]
Mr. Kydd: I am aware of that situation, yes. So that's the question?
I thank you for the question, honourable senator. I do appreciate it. I don't think I said that there would be members coming in with respect to 3,500 engineers. I meant that with respect to something else, but I would be happy to send you my notes to clarify that.
We understand, from a construction and labour perspective, that the system, as it currently exists in Canada, will allow — this is where I think we certainly cannot lose focus — the provinces and employers to work closely within the new expression of interest system and it is going to be critical to weeding out any type of fraudulent claim.
With respect to the current streams, as they exist, for allowing family members to come in and participate in the system, I think that has to be another piece of the legislation that needs to be considered and focused on.
I'm not sure if that exactly answers your question with respect to Division 16 Part 3.
What we do know — and we're talking about engineers and people in the construction trades — is that the current point system is not efficient enough to stream out and streamline the skills. The point system is allowing people with PhDs or Masters degrees to come in with current, recognized labour-demand needs. For example, the current system will provide the maximum 25 points for somebody with a PhD or a Master's degree and at least 17 years of full-time study or experience. In comparison with that, we have apprentices who have at least 12 years of full-time study and work who are only being allowed 12 points.
What's going to be important within the new expression of interest model is that we have complete cooperation between provinces and employers so that the skills are accounted for up front.
I know in my testimony last week one of my colleagues asked a very good question about how we're going to claim and how we're going to be able to identify those skills from employers in the provinces with interviews through Skype or telephone conversations. That is part of the legislation and the act that needs to definitely take a stronger stance because of the fact that we are dealing with people coming expediently through other countries. There has to be more cooperation and coordination.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Sir, I would just like to point out that, in your opening remarks, you were very positive, and that is why I asked you the question.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Thank you for being here this morning. My first question is for Mr. Bellissimo.
If implemented, how do you see the new recruitment model affecting our labour market? I'm particularly interested in any effect it would have on female workers, those with disabilities and visible minorities. Will gender, age, disability or visible minorities be taken into account?
Mr. Bellissimo: That's a very interesting question, madam senator. I know that you posed that question to government officials as well. The problem is we don't know the criteria. We can borrow and look at the New Zealand model. The New Zealand model has 140 points. You are automatically selected between 120 and 140. You might be selected if there is cap space under 120. It's very geared to the human capital model based on what we understand to be traditional criteria. It is unclear at this stage if any of those factors can be considered, at least at the expression of interest stage. We just don't have the details, and that would be part of the concern.
Senator Ataullahjan: Professor Worswick, you briefly touched on the role of employers as having too much influence. What are some of the issues that you have and that can arise? What are some of your main concerns?
Mr. Worswick: Thank you for the question. It's a very good one.
I guess I was trying to tiptoe a fine line in saying that. I think that employers do have a role, and I don't want it to come across that I am negative about this. I think employers can be very effective in terms of identifying education that's easily transferable to Canada or equivalent to Canadian education, and work experience, and these are difficult things.
One concern I have, and I have written on this especially related to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which is a different topic than here, but I think that Canadian immigration and temporary migration should be focused on skilled workers, and one of the main reasons I think that is that we have the problem of income inequality in Canada, and young workers — especially less skilled workers — have difficulty finding suitable employment to get started. An employer may find it profitable to try to bring in relatively less-skilled workers, even if it's advertised at the going wage rate or paid equivalent to what Canadians earn. It's not clear to me that that's in the country's best interests. It might be in the employer's best interests. When we focus on skilled workers, those interests tend to be much more closely aligned.
The other point I could quickly make is this: Mr. Kydd rightly pointed out that the current point system heavily favours university education. I think the current government has moved through the new sort of skilled trades program to try to make it easier to bring in skilled trades workers and I support that to some extent, but the point that is often lost in these discussions is that, if you look at different entry classes of immigrants, the immigrants who do the best in terms of labour market earnings are the skilled workers, principal applicants. Why? Because they have a lot of education. What does that mean? They may not get a job in the first year, and they may not get a job in their profession, but they tend to do well because they have a lot of skills.
Focusing just on filling gaps in our skill matrix as a country, there's a risk that instead of taking the Masters of Science student from MIT, we could end up taking an apprentice. Maybe we should take both, but let's not just move completely toward gap-filling.
Senator Ataullahjan: Your concern primarily is about the kind of immigrants we would be attracting, and the ones that we would be choosing would be —
Mr. Worswick: I'm not actually concerned about the immigrants themselves. I am more worried about the consequences for less-skilled Canadians finding employment. At the lower end of the income distribution, it's not easy to get established, whether that be for young Canadians or people maybe without post-secondary education or without completing high school. We have to be conscious that part of government policy should be to ensure that low-income Canadians have good opportunities. I'm not convinced that our high-skilled immigration program has a negative impact on high-skilled Canadians, but I am somewhat concerned at the low end of the skill distribution.
Senator D. Smith: I share your prioritizing skilled workers and people with more education, and I understand that, but you did point out that one of your concerns and a potential problem was a lot of people in the low-skilled categories. What are these categories with jobs? Are a lot of them like harvest time temporary ones, or what are the ones where the volume is significant?
Mr. Worswick: It depends on what program we're talking about, and I was mixing up the immigration and temporary foreign workers. I'm not saying anyone on the panel is arguing this, but hypothetically an employer might argue that they might own or manage a hotel in Calgary, and they can't find cleaning staff. Should we be prioritizing a person who's willing to come, maybe with low skills, to do that work, when clearly there are people in Canada who could do that work? Maybe the wage offer in the labour mark has to go up to encourage people to enter the labour market or to move geographically, but I would rather see that happen. I'm not sure that answers your question.
Senator D. Smith: Well, no. I can understand the hotel cleaning staff and that, and maybe harvest time things because it's not that long a period and isn't really all that relevant, but are there other categories in this big category?
Mr. Worswick: You brought up agricultural workers. I'm not suggesting we dismantle that system.
Senator D. Smith: And I'm not suggesting that either.
Mr. Worswick: I understand. I just feel that, generally, for employers who cannot fill vacancies, I am more sympathetic when there is a clear credential that the employee needs to have, such as an engineering degree or an electrical certification of some kind. I'm not too concerned at that level. It was just sort of a general comment that it might be in the interests of an employer who is operating a mine or a trucking business. These are jobs that don't require very high levels of credentials, so the supply of workers is likely to be quite responsive to a small increase in the wage. I'd rather see us try that, from a policy perspective —
Senator D. Smith: To address the unemployed who are in the low-skilled category already here.
Mr. Worswick: Yes.
Senator Demers: Regarding Bill C-4, what changes, if any, or adjustment would be made to Division 4 and 16 of Part 3? We at times make some changes or adjustments, if you want it.
The Chair: Are you addressing that to all of the witnesses?
Senator Demers: Yes.
The Chair: Does anyone want to take that on?
Mr. Bellissimo: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, honourable senator, for the question. Definitely one section that I would urge this committee to look at closely is proposed subsection 10.3(5), because based on the language it seems to suggest, and subject to further study, that ministerial instruction could impact other sections under the act not related to the expression of interest. That's a provision that's concerning because of the broadness of the language.
The other issue is with respect to these entities and bodies. If the department is aware of whom they are identifying, it would be best in the spirit of transparency to identify those bodies in the legislation. Those would be the two issues.
Generally, and again I take Senator Dawson's point as to how much can be done, I think that this program has incredible potential, and it would be too bad if so much of it was set out in ministerial instruction that it was open to that criticism that I highlighted earlier. If those instructions could be fleshed out, subject to parliamentary review and public debate, I think you are safeguarding this program from unnecessary criticism and a program that I think most of us agree would work well. It's the mode of presentation, the vagueness, that raises concerns.
Mr. Allen: Just to offer a comment along those ones, it authorizes the minister to issue instructions regarding eligibility criteria and, to me, the eligibility criteria is in there, but it is just as important to who actually assesses them, so we don't end up with a mismatch, that somebody assesses it, and then it is not accepted by the provincial or territorial regulator, so we have a seamless one. If you are going to go in to somebody who is appropriately qualified to move into this one, let's make sure the licensing bodies have input into it and that you also have that criteria. If we are looking for doctors or engineers or whatever, then we have input into that criteria and assess that they actually meet the standards and not have people come to the country where they don't and have that long struggle with that.
The Chair: I want to follow up with Professor Worswick. Yesterday we were told that this was going to be a completely new program, that it was one that has been called for because of the gap of the long list. It has not been very helpful to those who wish to come to Canada. I think somebody pointed out that they may go to other countries before they come here, so we don't get the best and the brightest; somebody else does, one of our competitors. It isn't just what is good for business; it's what makes Canada's economy grow. We want to get the best we can if we can't get them at home.
Some of your comments seem to have gone into existing programs, so I want to be absolutely certain. We were told all the other programs will continue, whether it's family group, a temporary worker's program, et cetera. This will be a new program; therefore, it is meeting some of the criticisms of the previous programs, which we're not dismantling but are setting up a new program.
Where do your fears come that some of the issues will be in the new program that you've now found in the old one? I want to point out that I come from Saskatchewan. We are not only looking at how to bring up segments of our own society into the skills that we need — and that's a lot of the skills trades, the universities and the skills trades — but, equally, we need new immigrants to come in. We can't fill it from the rest of Canada and we can't fill it immediately from Saskatchewan, so we are looking at balancing how we bring up more of our own students as they come into the trades and into university degree programs that are necessary, but also looking at bringing in new immigrants. This seems to be the kind of approach that might be of some benefit.
Can you tell me why you feel the risks of the other program will come in here? Is it simply the way it will be administered?
Mr. Worswick: I think, as it has been pointed out, we don't have a lot of details on how it will be administered, so I think it's natural to have some concerns.
I like the idea of an expression of interest system. I don't philosophically have a concern about that, I think mainly because the current points system, current selection for the skilled worker and professionals program as an example has very long waiting lists. This is a good idea that, if implemented well, could lead, as you say, to us getting more of the stronger applicants for immigration.
Some of my comments were in response to other comments I have heard around the table that we have to start focusing on bringing in individuals to fill particular shortages. I'm not convinced, with the appropriate educational system developments in Canada, that in the medium term we couldn't fill those gaps.
Do I think immigration is a net positive for Canada? Yes, I do, but sometimes I think our need for this is overstated. I'm supportive of the current level of immigration; I'm not saying it should be changed. I see this as a good development because I think for skilled immigration we can select more effectively. I didn't mean to imply there were other problems with this particular proposal.
The Chair: Thank you. I needed that clarification.
Mr. Bellissimo, I think you did point out that immigration acts haven't been giving ministerial directives, ministerial direction. In the past, I have been a critic. There's just too much in the hands of the minister that we don't know. That's not a recent phenomenon; that has been part of the problem of immigration. The rebuttal to me was always that the minister needs to act fast, needs have this authority, and that legislation takes too long, if we want to be responsive. We don't want to cause problems to those coming into the country, nor do we want to jeopardize our own country, so that ministerial discretion is important.
Where do you see, if you can state again, more ministerial discretion, other than the one point that you have already pointed out? I think it was 10.3, was it?
Mr. Bellissimo: Proposed section 10.3(5) is the most concerning provision and then, of course, it would also be 10.3(1), which provides 12 additional powers to the minister. Proposed section 10.4, with respect to disclosure of private information, I know Minister Alexander has commented that he has been working with the Privacy Commissioner, but again we don't have that information and it would be helpful if we did.
The other one would be proposed section 91.5, the designation of a body to represent or advise a person for consideration in connection.
If I might, Madam Chair, with respect to the concern you raised about Saskatchewan, it's a very important concern because the way this has evolved in the past few years with the provincial nominee program. There are additional carrots provided to intended applicants to settle outside of the major immigration hubs — Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec — and part of that was a system that flowed through to the province.
I know there have been provincial consultations, but part of the challenge we have now with a ranking system and the buy-in from the provinces is how you will rank and who will access those numbers. If you have 2,000 great applicants, how many are allocated provincially? There are many issues that from the CBA's perspective we would like to see discussed now, before the legislative changes, because again it would be unfortunate if down the road you didn't have provincial buy-in and then you had competing programs. Again, to your question, I think it's an important consideration.
The Chair: I think you have looked at our previous transcript. We were told by officials that there have been consultations with provinces. Quebec is notable. There has been some passing of information, but they have a separate system. It is geared to the rest of the provinces, and there have been buy-ins, so you're flagging that, without you or I knowing exactly what those negotiations have been with the provinces.
Mr. Bellissimo: What I'm stating is that, from our perspective, it would be nice to see, in rolling out this program, that such buy-in was public and that there was a concerted approach. But we still have those negotiations ongoing and not completed, so we're not at the point where we know where the provinces stand. Initial reviews are good, but it would be nice before the legislation passed to have that buy-in.
The Chair: Is that because you're a cautious lawyer and are attempting to ensure there are no difficulties with the program?
From a political point of view, I find that parliamentarians are often the first to know if there is a problem on immigration. We get a lot of telephone calls and a lot of lawyers contact us and alert us immediately when the system isn't working. That has an impact on every political party, whether it's on the government side or otherwise.
I'm wondering whether this program causes you any more concern than any of the other programs that are created backlogs or difficulties.
Mr. Bellissimo: The challenge with this program is that it is an exciting opportunity to do really good things in the system, and what we continue to flag — because of that — is that there's no need, in our respectful submission, to put so much in the hands of the minister and leave so much unsaid at this stage.
Again, this is not any comment on the minister or regarding any nefarious aims; that's not what we're saying. But lift the curtain. Be clear about what the intentions are with respect to entities and bodies — I've highlighted those. If it's the provinces, that's fantastic; those details should be in there. We're saying that we would hate to see this program compromised because we rushed to implementation.
The Chair: As I understand the implementation date — I've forgotten — it is 2015 when it will come into play. So from now until then is the consultation. What you're asking is that you be included and that it be transparent?
Mr. Bellissimo: Absolutely, yes. We have a period of implementation of a good 14 months. Let's continue the dialogue. Let's hopefully dial down some of the broad and sweeping language of legislation. That will make that consultation meaningful.
Senator Dawson: You asked more or less the question, but just a general comment about the fact that, because of the process, if we had the example of the Province of Quebec that has a particular status on this issue come in and say, ``We will or we will not participate; we will or will not cooperate,'' it would make it easier for us to know exactly where we stand. I guess it applies to Saskatchewan, as well.
Not having that time, because we have to report to the Finance Committee next week, there's no use having other hearings. But I do believe in your request for transparency, and I would again put on the record that omnibus bills were bad when we were doing them and they're still bad today. Flaws will be discovered in six months. You're going to come back with a bill saying, ``Here are mistakes that were found in the legislation, because you had 33 bills being amended in 16 different departments.'' It does create flaws, and sober second thought, Madam Chair, was the idea behind the Senate. It was true in 1867, and I think it's still true in 2013.
The Chair: I don't think you'll find disagreement on that last part of your statement — by any of the senators, anyway.
Senator Ataullahjan: Just a quick question. Professor, I was going to ask you the same question that I asked Mr. Bellissimo; namely, that if this law is implemented, how do you see it affecting our labour market? My special concern is with female workers, girls with disabilities and visible minorities.
Mr. Worswick: Thank you for the question. It's a very important question, but it's difficult to answer.
If the focus is on the groups of individuals you described who are already in Canada, then it's probably going to depend on the type of immigrants we admit. If the focus seems to be on skilled immigrants — there is some risk that may not only be the case — but if the focus is on skilled immigrants, then I don't think there will be a large negative impact. That would be my prediction.
If the focus is on the immigrants we admit, we have to realize that skilled immigrants typically are men, on average — certainly higher than in the population. I don't know numbers off the top of my head, but we will not be admitting a lot of people with significant physical disabilities.
It depends on the perspective of your question. I'm not sure if that's helpful.
Senator Ataullahjan: My concern was: Are we going to be attracting, like you said, just young men?
Mr. Worswick: I don't want to overstate that young men is the only group. Certainly, it is overrepresented. That has been true for a long time with Canadian immigration policies.
Senator Oh: My question can be open to all. We take in about 250,000 immigrants per year. With this new program for skilled immigrants, what about the other immigrants — the entrepreneurs? This country is built on immigration, and we have a lot of successful immigrant entrepreneurs who came here who came from non-English speaking countries. What about those sectors?
You have skilled workers — immigrants — come in, but you have to balance. You also need entrepreneurship — people who come here to create the businesses so that skilled immigrants have work to do. What about those coming from the other places? Will they be looked after in this system? I have a lot of calls and concerns on this. They could be the first wave to be without on this program.
The Chair: I am not sure that anyone here wants to answer that because it is a government question; you're asking the government. The departmental officials yesterday indicated — I don't know whether the overall numbers will be the same — that this is going to be another program in addition to all the other programs. So it's not replacing one program or another. I'm not sure it's going to make the other programs better or worse. They stand alone.
I guess one of the questions that we can endeavour to find out from department officials is whether this new program will change the target that often is set by governments. I think that's where you're getting to.
Senator Oh: Yes.
The Chair: We will undertake to get that answer for you.
I think we've come to the end of the questions. I want to thank all of the witnesses for coming: Ms. Thomson, Mr. Bellissimo, Mr. Allen, Professor Worswick and by way of video — we have now reconnected — Mr. Kydd. On behalf of all senators, I thank you for your input, for raising concerns and for indicating that there is good reason to look at this program positively, but with some caution.
Senators, we will adjourn until next week.
(The committee adjourned.)