Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

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

That's it for me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You can finish up. You have two and a half minutes.

[Jean-Yves Roy, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

The fact that the government has decided to proceed in this manner to try and resolve the backlog issue really intrigues me. Based on the way things are going to work, the backlog will continue to exist. There will be more and more applicants. Knowing that these discretionary powers are provided for somewhere, applications will simply be transferred from one place to another.

If I had applied for immigrant status, I can assure you that the day I found out these discretionary powers exist would be the day I would try, by every means possible, to take advantage of the new system. Not only are we simply moving the problem somewhere else, but we are creating unfairness. In any case, it will never be possible to completely eliminate the backlog, because the number of applications will continue to grow.

Conditions in other countries will continue to worsen, as we are seeing now. The more difficult things become in some countries, the more applications there will be from people wanting to emigrate. I don't think we can resolve overnight the problem of long waiting lists in immigration.

Do you agree with me?

[Stephen Green]

But she or he can also say no right away. It almost balances its way out, because if these provisions are implemented, there can be no backlog moving forward by the minister at that time through this instrument saying, “Sorry, we can take no more applications from this part of Asia, or no more applications from this part of the world.”

I think it's a very dangerous slope we're moving toward with these types of instruments, because we don't have the input necessary that all of us should be involved in.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow is next for seven minutes.

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

There are several areas. Once the change is done, it will be issued in the Gazette without any consultation. Now, at least, there is a 30-day period of consultation. So is that one aspect where notification after the fact will be dramatically problematic?

[Stephen Green]

Yes. As we stated in our paper, for regulations we come before you people and for instruments we just wait to hear.

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

Right, and that's it.

In terms of changing the points system, it's interesting to look at the Australian model. Instead of giving the minister a lot of power, they changed the points system in a way that allowed a lot more people to enter who fit precisely the kind of work they needed done. As a result, a lot of immigrants, during their first five or ten years, are able to find a job they're trained for.

We know that Canada is facing a labour shortage. Yes, we should scrap part 6 of this. In changing the points system, are there some suggestions you would make to the immigration minister to say, if this is your goal, here is a better way to do it? Do you have some suggestions, instead of lots of power, without consultation, no appeal, can't go to court, and above the law?

[Stephen Green]

I think we have to look at two things here. One is that when IRPA came out, Canada got rid of that concept of, “You're an engineer, there's a list, there's a job waiting for you.” We developed this concept called the human capital model, where we look at your age, your education, your work history, and we hope, based on all those skills and all those assets, you would be able to find work in Canada.

You hear these stories where someone came as an engineer and they're a taxi driver. But I think the new system changed that; it talked about human capital. Perhaps you would be a taxi driver at the beginning, but there wasn't this anticipation that you would be an engineer. It was made very clear, because we got rid of that list.

So we have this new concept of human capital. Then we have a whole other process of people who have jobs waiting for them, employers in Canada, people on work permits, that we're able to pluck out of this backlog as it exists today. I think that sort of solved the process for people who are urgently needed.

Now, there's always the debate on how quick is urgent. Is five months too long for an immigrant? We have to make sure we do the checks, the medical.... I don't know. Maybe we could bring them in on a work permit quicker, in that sense, so if someone has a job waiting for them and they want their immigration.... But the Canada experience class is going to help us out with that as well.

Going back to the 1970s, we talked about streams and pools, certain streams of occupations where we know there are jobs and we can say to people that there is a job waiting for them.

I think we have to look at all of these areas, but it is a very hard question to answer. Governments of today and in the past have all had this difficult question. I really think it's time to sit down and figure out...there is this wonderful country, there is wonderful opportunity, there are wonderful people outside waiting to help us, so how do we manage all of this? I think it's time we took our heads out of the sand and really tried to think of a democratic, responsible way of figuring this out.

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

In 2002--I think Joe Fontana was the Liberal MP chairing this committee and Mr. Coderre was the minister--they changed the points system to try to fit the skills better. As a result, because of the going back and forth and the timing, the backlog dramatically increased. Putting aside retroactively where they should be or shouldn't be, was that a good change in 2002, in the way the points are now really stacked in favour of people who have degrees and speak fluent English? As a result, people like carpenters, who we really need, probably won't be able to fit under the points system because they don't have enough points if they don't speak fluent English, or maybe they're 45 rather than 35, for example.

[Stephen Green]

Like every piece of legislation, some of it has good parts and bad parts. The good parts were that the ones who were highly educated, who we really need, had their entry facilitated, but it didn't really answer the questions for the blue-collar workers, as we refer to the situation. Again, the department has been struggling to figure out whether we should lower language requirements, perhaps, for blue-collar workers. Should we lower the education requirement? Again, it's something we have to sit down and debate, talk about, and not instrument it.

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

Thank you.

The New Democrats have been straight up in saying that we don't support this bill. In your mind, it's beyond part 6. It doesn't matter how we amend it, it's not going to work, so we might as well just scrap it.

[Stephen Green]

I don't know about amending it, because one never knows what an amendment will be, but certainly the way it stands now, we would have great difficulty, as we said in our submission, supporting this.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Chow.

Mr. Komarnicki, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

I have a couple of questions. Your initial comment was to increase the percentage required under the points system, which would allow fewer people to come in, the more educated, more qualified, so to speak. Is that what you were saying?

[Stephen Green]

No, what I'm saying is that by increasing the points, it would require people to perhaps either have family in Canada or a job offer for them, because that would compensate for the increase. So perhaps the ones who don't have the exact human capital we want at the time would overcome the increase in points by having family in Canada and by having jobs waiting for them. Under the points system, you'd get a bonus of 15 points.

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

What you're suggesting is bonusing up the points system in such a fashion as to exclude some, but include particular classes or categories of people?

[Stephen Green]

To reduce the present possibility of a backlog for now, yes.

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

With respect to the regulatory legislation, obviously the status quo as it is now, using legislation or regulation over the last 10 or 15 years, has not addressed the backlog. Would you agree with me? It has increased from about 50,000 back 10 or 11 years ago to over 900,000 today.

[Stephen Green]

It's hard. You're comparing apples and oranges, because pre-IRPA it was a totally different system; we have a different system after IRPA. But there is no question there is a problem with the present legislation, and we are all saying that something has to be done with respect to the creation of a backlog.

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

The regulatory changes, even though they can come before a committee, ultimately have to go back to the House, and either they get passed by the government of the day or they don't. Would you agree?

[Stephen Green]

Yes.

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

Ultimately, the government of the day makes a decision on policy as to what will pass and what will not pass with respect to immigration.

[Stephen Green]

Correct.