Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 8th, 2008

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Mooney, if you have evidence that they're manipulating the figures and moving things around, I certainly would like to receive it. What I am receiving on an everyday basis from the posts, as well as the case processing centres in Canada, is that it's first in, first out.

I don't know where you get your figures, sir. On a daily basis, I get 15 or 20 emails back: first in, first out. I see Mr. Amlani agrees with me. It's a 48% increase in Beijing and a 41% decrease in intake time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A brief response from either of you is in order. Go ahead and respond, and then I'll go to Mr. St-Cyr.

If you want to respond, Mr. Mooney, please feel free to.

[Philip Mooney]

Again, they're very public in what they say. Don't forget we deal with cases on an average basis. Every call I get from any client I've ever filed an application for says, “How come it's taking longer and longer?” I have to try to think of a reason. But if you think of the issue that says we're not allowing any more in and we have new people applying, then why are some people getting through so much faster than others?

CIC is very clear: if we get an arranged employment opinion for a client, they go from the back of the list to the front of the list. If the provinces say, “We want Jack”, he goes even ahead of my clients. If they now want someone who, let's say, gets a job offer in Canada, they come here right away, and then their application is moved to the front of the line. This is procedure; it's in their operations manual.

It's a growing percentage, which is now up to somewhere in the order of 30% to 40%.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. St-Cyr, you have seven minutes, please.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for being here.

I have a few brief questions. Mr. Wong, in your presentation, as I understand it, you invited us to remove the provisions relating to immigration from Bill C-50. Mr. Karygiannis then said that you had said this needed further study.

Do you think that we have enough information at this point to remove the provisions now or does this need further study?

[Victor Wong]

Thank you for your question.

I think what the government should do is withdraw the amendments to IRPA that are in Bill C-50. They should issue a proper, separate discussion paper--we did it in the past, we'd have a discussion paper on immigration--and then bring in the legislative changes that they propose.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

This week, probably tomorrow, we will have to vote on a motion to remove the immigration clauses from Bill C-50. Would you encourage us to vote to remove them and then do a more comprehensive study of the entire process?

[Victor Wong]

Yes.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Mr. Mooney, what is the difference between your association and the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants? What is the connection? Do you have the same membership?

[Philip Mooney]

Membership in CSIC is mandatory; they're the regulator. The best analogy I can give you is the law society and the bar association. Membership in CAPIC is not mandatory, but we're the lobby group. We like to say that CSIC is our policeman and CAPIC is our family.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I understand very well, because, for example, engineers have the same kinds of associations. If I understand correctly, all your members are also members of CSIC, but not all CSIC members are necessarily members of your organization.

[Philip Mooney]

Yes, that's correct.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Raper, in your leaflets about unionizing, you explain that in Quebec, unionizing is forbidden if the agricultural operation closes down during the winter. I am amazed; this is the first time I have heard that.

Even if you oppose that measure, do you know the reasons why seasonal workers are denied the right to unionize?

[Stan Raper]

Under the labour relations act in Quebec, if there are not three or more full-time employees on an agricultural operation, they are not covered under the act; therefore, seasonal agricultural workers have no right to unionization in the province of Quebec. Seasonal agricultural workers aren't covered; greenhouse operations are.

We filed for three applications in Quebec in 2006. One was accepted by the labour board. That was a greenhouse. The two field crop operations were denied; we're currently in the labour board and the courts in Quebec, arguing that they're in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms around association.

I'd also like to point out that in the package we gave you is an affidavit from a seasonal agricultural worker who has been basically told that he will not receive a visa this year. He is the leader of our unionizing operation at the field crop operation, and he's been denied his visa to come back to Canada this year.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I read that, and it is very disturbing, very worrisome. I would like to get more details regarding employment insurance. You say you have been given leave to go to the Ontario Superior Court on the question of mandatory payment of employment insurance premiums.

What is the situation at present? What changes are you asking for, exactly?

[Stan Raper]

Basically we argued that all temporary foreign workers pay into the employment insurance program and therefore should be entitled to the premiums they should be eligible for.

Unemployment insurance has denied temporary foreign workers from other countries, the sending countries, because of their residency status. I would point out that under the unemployment insurance act, American citizens can receive unemployment insurance benefits because the act was altered 20 years ago to include U.S. citizens. They are able to collect the premium, even though they're non-residents.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Are you asking for foreign workers to be entitled to benefits if they lose their jobs, or are you asking that premiums stop being collected because they are not entitled to employment insurance?

[Stan Raper]

No, we are advocating that these workers should continue to pay into a program that provides them the full benefit of what is entitled to them. We argue that the non-residency requirement is discriminatory against sending country workers, and also that these premiums could be prorated in regard to seasonal agricultural workers. But they are entitled to sick benefits and parental benefits; therefore, we have withdrawn our legal challenge, because the number of parental benefits has skyrocketed through our offices because of our work.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

The $22 million in benefits that have been recovered, that you refer to, those are parental leave benefits. Is that right?

[Stan Raper]

It is that, and workers' compensation and other civil action suits that we have taken on behalf of injured, killed, or lamed seasonal agricultural workers throughout the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Madam Chow, for seven minutes, please.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Wong, there has been a lot of discussion about wait times. There is a proposal in front of Parliament right now, about to be voted on tomorrow at 5:30, Bill C-50. Basically, there are already 900,000 people on the wait list. That bill does not actually deal with the 900,000 people who are on the wait list; it deals with whoever comes after the bill's introduction—February 27, I believe.

Do you think it would really reduce wait times, from what you've said? Without the funding, the $22 million, the existing funding has basically dealt with the target of 250,000, so far. Unless the target is expanded to somewhere from 300,000 to 330,000, then really the wait times, especially for families, especially from Beijing, for example, will not decrease. In fact, they may increase.

Am I correct in that assumption? This is subject to a big debate as to whether it would increase or decrease.

[Victor Wong]

It is our position that unless you increase the target range, you will not substantively decrease the backlog, because we are already processing 250,000 applications every year with the existing staffing resources.

It would be good to get some allocation of resources to those visa offices where the wait times are too long. The wait times are too long in some visa offices, so if they can get some visa officers there to address those disparities, it would be helpful. But overall, with your existing plan—I have the annual report of 2007—it has 240,000 to 265,000 in the targeted range for 2008. Unless you increase this range, you cannot address the backlog. The backlog will just stay, because you have the existing complement of staff bringing in 250,000 every year, and they've done that for the last three years.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Right.

On your fifth recommendation, you ran out of time. Can you describe how you came to that recommendation?

[Victor Wong]

There's a lack of transparency with what's happening with Bill C-50. The legislation was tabled late on a Friday afternoon. The government has had three weeks to advise Canadians of the impact of these changes. The minister talks about adjusting categories, and so on. Well, you can start with your 2008 plan. You have all these categories with different ranges and different numbers. How will Bill C-50 change this plan on a go-forward basis?

In the best scenario, that these changes are great, they will be easily implemented, and there will be a smooth transition, what will be the change? Who will be the winner? Who will be the loser?

I think we deserve an answer on that. The government hasn't provided those answers, so they've left themselves open to this current climate of mistrust from some of the community groups that are concerned about the possible impact of C-50.