Good afternoon, and thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chinese Canadian National Council is the community leader for Chinese Canadians in promoting a more just, respectful, and inclusive society. We are a national non-profit organization with 27 chapters across Canada, and our mandate is to promote the equality, rights, and full participation of our community members in all aspects of Canadian society.
As a national human rights organization, we believe that legislation and public policies must reflect the humanitarian and social justice values that are commonly shared by Canadians and that such policies should enhance the ability of everyone, including temporary foreign workers and others without permanent status, to make an important contribution to this country.
According to the 2006 census, there are more than 1.3 million Chinese Canadians, and we are the second largest racialized community in Canada.
Our community is diverse, with a rich though sometimes tragic history spanning our 150 years of continuous community in this country. Our community has been subjected to racist immigration legislation in the form of the Chinese head tax, the Newfoundland head tax, and the Chinese exclusion act. We have also been subjected to various exclusionary policies, programs, and practices at the local level. It is our direct experience with exclusionary immigration legislation that guides us in formulating some suggestions for your consideration.
Immigration should be central to a nation-building agenda. So far, our approach to immigration has been less than inspiring. We seem to be working around the edges to solve our problems. We need to be more visionary. There are three key words that could guide us in our strategic vision: nation, dignity, and choices.
We're currently moving down the wrong path. Immigration is not about filling labour market shortages with just-in-time labour. CIC is not a temp agency. We should be building a nation of active citizens. Temporary foreign workers and non-status residents deserve real choices that include a clear path to permanent status and citizenship.
There are about 120,000 temporary foreign workers in Canada, and this number is on the rise. Unfortunately, we have not provided support to this group of workers, who are vulnerable to exploitation by unscrupulous employers, landlords, and others. Last year, two temporary foreign workers from China died and four others were injured in an industrial accident in Alberta. Another group of temporary foreign workers from China complained about the excessive fees charged by a consultant hired by Maple Leaf Foods, based in Manitoba.
Temporary foreign workers are at risk through precarious work. They experience the impact of family separation, not unlike the Chinese who were separated from their loved ones during the Chinese exclusion act period. Their tenure in Canada is tied to the terms and conditions of their visa, and there will be an impact if they change their employer or get sick or injured and cannot work.
So our first recommendation is that the settlement programs that CIC funds should be available to temporary workers, international students, refugee claimants, and non-status residents.
Some temporary foreign workers experience barriers to permanent status and citizenship. The Canadian experience class only targets international students and higher-skilled workers. It excludes the lower-skilled workers. Are these people not worthy to become Canadians?
As Canada ramps up its reliance on temporary foreign workers to meet labour market shortages, we run the risk of turning our two departments, CIC and HRSDC, into one big temp agency. We should be nation-building instead.
So our second recommendation is that there should be a clear path to permanent status and citizenship for all temporary foreign workers.
With regard to non-status residents, there are anywhere from 50,000 to more than 200,000 residents without status in Canada. They include people who have overstayed their tourist visas and refused refugee claimants who have exhausted their legal avenues.
Not everyone stays in Canada. Actually, only those with the strongest desire choose to stay in Canada. They are left in a situation where they cannot get a driver’s licence, credit card, OHIP card, or apply for a bank loan. They live at the margins of our society. The enforcement of removal orders is ad hoc, expensive, disruptive, and only serves to amplify the unfairness in the system. We need a comprehensive regularization program.
Former Conservative MP, the late Douglas Jung, was instrumental in convincing the Diefenbaker government to introduce the Chinese adjustment program, which allowed thousands of “paper sons” to regularize their status in Canada. In 1994, Liberal Minister Sergio Marchi introduced the deferred removal orders class, DROC, which allowed refused refugee claimants who had not been removed three years after they had exhausted their legal avenues the opportunity to make application for permanent status. This was the last comprehensive regularization program. Of course, there have been a couple of smaller-scale initiatives involving the Somalian and Algerian communities.
Our third recommendation is that we need a comprehensive regularization program, one that offers a clear path to legal status and citizenship. Such a program could be based on residency in Canada--for example, three years of residency. Non-status residents with less than three years residency should be able to apply for a work visa to acquire the three-year residency requirement.
Finally, we would recommend that removal letters still be issued, but that the CBSA refrain from initiating deportation actions, which involve arrest, detention, and forced removal from Canada. Applicants for this program would still undergo the usual medical, security, and criminal checks.
I'd like to make a couple of comments on Bill C-50. The proposed immigration changes in Bill C-50 will not adequately address the backlog unless the immigration targets are significantly increased. Over the last three years, Canada has received an average of 250,000 immigrants with the existing complement of staff resources.
There are disparities that exist in the visa offices. For example, an applicant from the U.S. might wait one year to have his application processed, while the same applicant from China, India, or Pakistan may have to wait three years or longer. Those disparities need to be addressed. The $22 million in extra resources allocated in the last budget to address these disparities should be properly allocated to resource our visa offices. That said, we are within our target of accepting 250,000 immigrants every year. Therefore, the extra staffing resources will not reduce the backlog unless you significantly increase the target range in the 2008 immigration plan.
Our fourth recommendation is to suggest that the government increase the immigration target range from the existing 240,000 to 265,000 to a range of 300,000 to 330,000, which is 1% of the Canadian population, in order to address the backlog.
The other thing is that CIC has not issued a revised operational plan, nor has it provided a transparent update on the impact of the proposed changes in Bill C-50. If there's no increase in the immigration targets, then how will these changes impact on the numbers for the various categories—economic, family class, refugees, temporary foreign workers, and students?