Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

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

And where are you seeing that? In which part of section 87.3?

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

The first one, 87.3(1), reads “This section applies to applications for visas or other documents under subsection 11”—

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

But it says “applications for permanent resident status under subsection 21(1)”—

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

Then “or temporary resident status”.

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

Yes, “or temporary resident status”, which is not related to temporary foreign workers.

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

They're still given temporary resident status, or they could be given temporary resident status.

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

So by extension you say that's the portion that applies to temporary foreign workers?

[Dr. Jenna L. Hennebry]

My concern here is just about the potential for the minister to have discretion to choose which foreign workers to let in and which not to let in.

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

My understanding of Bill C-50 is that it does not apply to temporary foreign workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Time is up. No closing comment.

I have Madam Beaumier for five minutes.

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Thank you.

I'm pleased to have you both here today.

As members of Parliament in high-density areas, we have a lot of immigration, and much of what you've told us we've experienced. However, I think your opinions are certainly more articulate than I could ever....

The problem I have with Bill C-50, and I'd like your comments on this, is the fact that it is turning more power over to the bureaucrats. When they say “minister”, we all know it doesn't mean minister; it means bureaucrats. I think most of us who have dealt directly with the bureaucrats have heard racist comments, and I'll even tell you a few of them.

I called about Jalandhar, and I was told the reason we have such a high percentage of people turned down in Jalandhar is because they were Punjabis, and Punjabis tended to lie more than others. Now, if that isn't just plain ordinary discrimination, I don't know what is. We have a lawyer in Hamilton who has talked about racist comments he's read from bureaucrats.

I'm not saying that bureaucrats are all racist. In fact, it's probably a very, very small percentage. However, on the refugee board...in The Walrus magazine, we've seen that there's been political intervention. And that doesn't mean intervention by politicians; it means intervention by bureaucrats, where there was definite bias against the Romas.

When we're dealing with giving more power to the minister, we're not, we're giving it more to the bureaucracy. When equality is ignored, the first victim is justice.

I would like to talk to Mr. Crépeau sometime about reasonable accommodation and have his opinion on that, because he's pretty fiery when it comes to assimilation and treatment of immigrants.

What I want to know is, do you think our charter has made politicians very lazy? We often pass legislation and say, “Well, the charter will take care of it if it's wrong”. When everyone who presents before us is of the same opinion as you, why aren't we doing it? What's the down side?

[Prof. François Crépeau]

You're asking a question that would be a good question for a whole graduate seminar: the effect of the charter on the political system in Canada.

One element that is key, and that would also be an element of an answer for the previous comments.... What the charter has done is ask the government to justify each and every decision that might affect rights and freedoms for one individual. This means that in the early years of the charter, for example, the government has had to go through all the laws on the books to make sure they were so-called charter proof.

What it means nowadays is that very often there is a game, and that's probably normal when you have a standard, where you have people trying to see what the standard means and how you can avoid the standard--not necessarily evade it but avoid it--or how you can do what you want to do while respecting the standards. That's what lawyers do with tax law all the time. So it's not something that is a problem in itself.

What I think it does is put the government, and the bureaucrats, as you were saying, always in a defensive position. For example, if we come back to the security certificate issue--because that's to me very enlightening--several ministers in a row from different parties and different governments have told us, “It's okay. We've checked that with our lawyers; there's no problem with the charter.” And this has been said of many acts of Parliament.

Then we get to the courts and the courts say, “No, you're wrong. Once again, you're wrong, and we'll tell you why.” Then we send it back to the political system, and the political system has to answer and provide a second type of procedure to see if it works. We'll go back to the Supreme Court, and maybe it will be accepted and maybe not.

What I'm concerned with is that, especially with immigrants...you see the number of cases that have gone to the Supreme Court in recent years on immigration issues or on multiculturalism issues with people who have recently come, etc. We have a tendency to think that foreigners should have fewer rights. That's our sort of common belief. When I was young, aboriginals were nowhere to be seen--they had no rights--and that was taken for granted. There had to be an overhaul of our whole conceptual thinking, and I think we're at that point for immigrants. We have to think now, and governments especially have to think proactively about how they can protect the rights of these people. What are the issues? When we are trying constantly to limit their access to justice--especially to recourses--what we are doing is placing a time bomb in front of us and waiting for it to explode; the courts will say, “No, you can't do that. We've told you time and again.” I think in terms of democracy, that's a problem.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Beaumier.

For the last two speakers, to wrap it up, I'm going to go to Mr. Komarnicki and then to Mr. Bevilacqua.

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

Mr. Chair, as a point, don't we have everybody speak before anybody repeats? That's the rule we adopted. So Mr. Komarnicki can speak--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, that's not the--

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

Yes, that's the rule we had.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, it's not. That's not the rule. We've talked about this rule on several occasions, but that's not the rule.

Am I correct in saying that, Mr. Clerk?

[Inaudible--Editor]...with a five-minute time limit for each round, and that no individual member will be allowed to participate more than once in each round unless the member gives up his allotted speaking time. That's a round, so I think we're okay.

Mr. Komarnicki and Mr. Bevilacqua.

Mr. Carrier didn't put up his hand. Do you want to speak? Okay, so Mr. Carrier.

I was trying to get Mr. Bevilacqua in because he had his hand up there as well, but Mr. Carrier would be next on the list, according to the list and the interpretation of what we're doing. Madam Beaumier was just on.

Mr. Carrier.

[An hon. member]

This is really crazy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Crépeau, I have a quick question for you regarding all the rights that you listed. You referred to the right of immigrants to choose the language of education, that is a great principle…

[Prof. François Crépeau]

Immigrants have all the rights laid out in the Charter, with the exception of their right to be educated in the language of the minority, which is reserved for Canadian citizens.

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

So, they do not have that right.

[Prof. François Crépeau]

No, they do not. That is one of the three rights they do not have. The others are the right to vote and the right to enter and remain in Canada.

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

Given everything that you have said, would it be possible to amend Part VI of Bill C-50, which deals with immigration, even though it is not consistent with the protection of the individual rights you so aptly described?

[Prof. François Crépeau]

In my opinion, that question will come forward and will be referred to the courts. They will have to decide, for example, based on what mechanism it is possible not to render a decision, because that is one of the mechanisms provided for in Bill C-50. Up until now, we have been able to either accept or reject an application. Henceforth, it will be possible to accept or reject, or render no decision whatsoever.

As was pointed out by the Canadian Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, not rendering a decision means that there is no possibility of judicial review, since there has been no decision. Thus there would no longer be any avenue for appealing such a decision. It is possible that the courts will decide that, since they are the guarantors of individual rights, if no decision has been rendered two, three or four years later, one can assume that the decision is negative, such that individuals will have a right of appeal.

I think it is really too bad that, once again, we are leaving it up to the courts to do this work. I would suggest an amendment, which would be to delete that section and ensure that a decision is made and that all applicants thus have a potential avenue of appeal.