Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Stephen Green]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

And the application of the processes within the instruction would have to be charter compliant.

[Stephen Green]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

So in the sense of both the instruction and the application of the instruction, it would have to be non-discriminatory. It couldn't be based on ethnicity because it could be challenged under the charter. Would you agree with me on that? Yes or no.

[Stephen Green]

I would, but the problem is that there's no input from lawyers who are outside the department to determine whether or not it's charter compliant, and we have many examples of even a retroactivity that was not done.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

My question was not whether there was input; my question was whether those instructions and the applications of the instructions would have to stand the test of the charter and would have to be charter compliant to be valid. That's the question. Do you agree with me?

[Stephen Green]

In the department's opinion.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

No, not in the department's opinion, in the courts.

[Stephen Green]

Fine, yes, in the courts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll have to continue some other time.

The seven-minute rounds have been completed.

Mr. Telegdi, five minutes.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

With regard to charter compliance, it took until 2006 before security certificates got through the Supreme Court and became unconstitutional. That was a quarter of a century from when the charter was enacted. So I hope, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, that you find a different line on charter compliance, because charter rights can be denied for a long time before they're dealt with by the courts.

I was here in 2002 when this thing was put through, and the committee was very much against it. I don't give a damn what any immigration ministers have said since I've been here, because basically they have all been pretty incompetent. Bureaucrats have run the department. So when they're talking about a minister's real power, it's bureaucratic power.

This thing was a total disaster. The reality is that we have a huge backlog, yes, but just imagine if you didn't have a backlog. What would that say about Canada? The fact of the matter is that you can find people in the backlog who the economy desperately needs right now. That is where we have a crisis. And we predicted it back in 2002, that blue-collar immigrants couldn't get in, labour couldn't get in.

Essentially the fault lies with the points system and how the points were allocated. If we want to keep the points system, which has been praised by all the countries we've looked at, be it Australia, New Zealand, Britain, or the United States, which have undertaken studies, for objectivity and clarity I think the fix has to be in fixing the points.

You mentioned allocating more for family. That makes sense. Allocating more for a job offer makes sense. Our points system is out of whack when you compare it to other countries in terms of being responsive.

So if we decide on that, and we want to keep the points system because we want to keep the objectivity of it, then we have to fine-tune the points system so that a job offer means a lot more in terms of getting in the queue. Once you're in the queue, we have to have a method of bringing people out of the queue--so if we need 100 welders, we can grab 100 welders from a backlog. That backlog now doesn't contain any welders, and that's the problem. The government is looking at temporary foreign workers, which I think is totally the wrong way to go in terms of satisfying the shortcomings of the present-day points system.

If we want to fix the system and we want to keep what is good about it, then we have to be a lot more responsive in terms of meshing the points system with the requirements for the country economically. Labourers are needed in this country, and the only way they can come in is either as refugees who happen to be labourers.... But in terms of the economic files, the only way they get in is through the temporary foreign worker program, which creates a whole slew of other problems where people are exposed to servitude, exploitation, and the list goes on and on.

My whole argument is, make the points system responsive to the needs of the economy, be able to fast-track people. Processing doesn't take that long. The only reason we have a backlog is that when we have 500,000 people applying, we take out 250,000. Well, guess what? The backlog will have grown by 250,000. There you have a backlog. But the big problem with this backlog is that we don't have welders and we don't have labourers.

People have expectations that if they come because of their degree and knowledge of the language, they're going to get some job that is commensurate with their experience. We heard evidence in committee of an engineer who comes here, can't find a job, and is very unhappy. In the meantime, you have a bricklayer who comes here and finds a job and is very happy.

I'd like to have you comment on that.

[Stephen Green]

I think there has to be a proper meshing of the temporary movement as well as the permanent movement. And for employers in Canada, I think even six months is a long time for them. So I think you have to work both and look at both. Processing of immigrant applications is becoming very difficult for our visa officers abroad, from a security standpoint and a medical standpoint.

I think you need to use both the temporary and the permanent movement to satisfy the working environment in Canada.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Have you ever asked why it takes 30 days to get in a temporary foreign worker and it takes a hell of a lot longer to get in an immigrant? It shouldn't be. The security requirements and all those things—

[Stephen Green]

For a permanent immigrant, you must check their documents, whether they're fraudulent and so on. It's a lot more in-depth. This person is coming here forever. Sometimes our officers have a very difficult time determining that, so that's why the temporary movement is very good, for employers to satisfy that need quickly. The government, to their credit, really has done a good job in the temporary movement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Good. Thank you.

My list goes back to Mr. Komarnicki.

Committee members, if you can, would you stay around for about five minutes after this is over? I want to get more direction on the way we distribute questions back and forth.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Chair, Nina is giving me her time. That's why I'm speaking.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Maybe we can have a little five-minute discussion on that.

Where did we just come from? We came from Mr. Telegdi, so I will go to Mr. Carrier.

He wasn't on the list, so I guess we'll go to Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Do I have five minutes?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Green, I listened to your discussion earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am disappointed to hear of such significant changes being suggested with respect to immigration, considering that, when the Conservatives took office, there were only five commissioner positions to fill, and now, there are 50. There is a lot of talk of problems with the processing of applications, but I think we should at least begin by appointing commissioners and possibly even increasing the number of commissioners, in order to resolve the problem. In any case, we are stuck with the current bill.

Earlier, you were also saying that you would agree to the idea of finding a different way of reducing the number of people in the queue, by setting different criteria. I would be interested in hearing your views. You have said that it is undemocratic for choices to be made and priorities set at the discretion of an individual—the Minister, in this case.

If certain priorities were to be discussed by a committee, with a view to developing grids for analyzing applications, would that be a potential solution? You talked about the family class. Family reunification could be a priority. Would you see that as an acceptable process for setting priorities, or do you still believe that all applications must be reviewed based on the date they were received, whatever the purpose? Did you follow me?

[Stephen Green]

First of all, with respect to the family class, it's something, really, that the department can't control, how many times a Canadian falls in love with another person, and it has always been interesting to me why these numbers are included in our final numbers. If suddenly we're a great nation of love and everyone falls in love and we want to bring in 60,000 people, we have to do it. So I've never really understood why we mix family class with this other class.

I think it would be a positive move if we debated this and it went to committee, but again, we would want to make sure that the present rule sticks—one applicant overseas did apply—and I think the courts have already told us that. So if we decided on a different system, it would always be forward looking.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

So, you would agree with priorities being established by all of the parties represented in a committee for the review of applications before becoming the law. You would agree with the principle that priorities be established on the basis of a regulatory parliamentary process.

[Stephen Green]

I would agree, but we do it now. Anyone who has a job offer in Canada who's waiting abroad is plucked from the list and processed immediately. So the government is presently doing it today, in a positive way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

There is about a minute and a half if you want it. No?

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Thank you.

I have a couple of quick points.

Since coming to office, we've made over 100 appointments. So that's significant.

First of all, are refugees, protected persons, excluded from the effect of Bill C-50?