Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 1st, 2011

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to particularly welcome Mr. Bhatti to the committee. He is from the west coast and is joining us by teleconference.

Mr. Bhatti, I want to focus a bit on one of the suggestions you raised. We have over a million applications in the backlog worldwide. Figures given to this committee are that 150,000 of those applications were parents and grandparents in the queue. One suggestion that has come before this committee is that we create a ten-year multiple-entry visa that we could give to these parents as a means of alleviating the backlog on the assumption that a large percentage of those parents would withdraw their application for citizenship if they could get a ten-year multiple-entry visa, and then just come and visit their children when they want.

Researching this, though, I find that Canada has had a five-year multiple-entry visa that's been available to people. Just this summer I found a press release from the government saying that they had increased that to ten years. But nobody seems to have heard of it.

Members of this committee thought that this was a good idea to create this visa; members of this committee weren't even aware that we had such a visa.

So I'm thinking that this five- and ten-year multiple-entry visa is not used very much, not publicized very much, or not granted very much. I'm wondering if you could tell us, in your experience as an immigration lawyer, how many people, how many parents are getting five- or ten-year multiple-entry visas now.

[Roger Bhatti]

It's not happening often. There's a level of lack of knowledge, in the communities that sponsor most of these parents, of such avenues.

When I raise the issue with clients, they're often surprised to discover there is even such a concept available to them. It's underutilized. When I do discuss it with clients, more often than not they regard it as a very attractive alternative. For many of the families, they have a cultural aspect of living in extended families, and their parents often still want to maintain some kind of presence in the home country or be able to visit there again.

At the same time, the ten-year multiple-entry visa is going to allow our medical system some benefit. These visitors will then be obtaining private insurance for their visits. The potential concern about the stress and strain on Canada's social structure will no longer be as acute. So it's a very good alternative, one that my clients, once they're made aware of it, are very much in favour of. Of course, my clients, being Canadians, are very much aware of the impact their relatives', their parents', or grandparents' arrival in Canada may ultimately have on the Canadian health care system.

It's also important to note that these people undergo rigorous medical examination, and we have seen in the courts a lower and lower threshold in terms of what constitutes medical inadmissibility. So when these people arrive in Canada, they're not arriving with illnesses. They're not arriving with pre-existing conditions. They're healthy. That's an important factor to note.

But I do think this would be a very attractive alternative that provides a number of benefits and allows the social structure to maintain itself while allowing some family reunification on a regular basis.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

Mr. Taylor, I had the pleasure of meeting with several of your members a week or two ago. If I understand the perspective of the restaurant industry in Canada, it's that you perceive a looming skill shortage that cannot be filled by the domestic Canadian population. You would like to see a temporary foreign worker program expanded to permit more of those workers who come and get trained and established in your members' establishments the opportunity to, perhaps, apply for permanent residency, maybe the same way as people do under the live-in caregiver program, so that if they come and work for two years in a four-year period, they could then have a path to permanent residency.

If I understood your members' response, they thought that would be a good thing. After going through the trouble of training the workers and getting them established, they would like to hang on to these workers.

Is that right?

[Justin Taylor]

That is correct. In many provinces their PNP programs currently do have similar programs where, after working a period of time as a temporary foreign worker, you can apply for permanent residency.

Initially when we supported these types of policies, we were concerned that workers would simply leave once they became permanent residents, leave our industry, and move to different parts of Canada. We've done follow-up studies with our members, and we've found that the folks who come to Canada as temporary foreign workers working in our industry gain experience, end up moving up through the chain in the restaurants, and, once they are sponsored for permanent residency, stay in the restaurants. We've had very little complaints about the loss of that labour.

So this is definitely a policy that would be very attractive to us.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have less than a minute left.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Mr. Collacott, if I understand your testimony correctly, you don't think we need immigration to meet Canada's domestic labour needs. Citizenship and Immigration Canada on its website says that Canada, because of aging population and reduced birth rates, will be dependent upon new immigrants for 100% of our new labour growth in five years. I'm going to ask you whether you think CIC is wrong about that.

Second, the Conservatives, when they took power, increased immigration levels from an average of 220,000 a year to 254,000 a year, a 14% increase. Last year they let in 280,000—the highest in half a century at 0.8% of the population.

Do you think they were incorrect in doing that as well?

[Martin Collacott]

Well, first of all, yes, the statement that increasing the labour force will depend entirely on immigration is correct. In a sense, I've already answered that, though. The increase in the size of the population or the labour force is irrelevant, and I think in that sense that statement is rather misleading. It implies that, well, because 100% of our increase will depend on immigration, we've got to have it.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to stop there, Mr. Collacott.

We'll have to move on to Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

If you listen to the government and the messaging that's kind of going out through the Minister of Immigration , they are setting the framework to introduce caps. That's what I believe.

A big question is that once you implement caps, what you're really saying is that there are hundreds of thousands of people who will likely never get the opportunity to come to Canada. So it is a bit of a slippery slope.

Having said that, the question I have for you is that...and you make reference to the U.S. You put in a cap. How do you--in a very short answer, if you could, please--implement a cap? How do you say no to the hundreds of thousands of people who want to come in? What would be your primary source? Would it be a lottery?

What would you suggest the committee look at?

[Martin Collacott]

The Americans do have a portion of their immigration program that is a lottery. I think that's ridiculous.

I think you have to set your caps and then decide on what basis you're going to accept applications. Up until now it's been based on who makes their application first, and priority under the previous Immigration Act was given to family class. I think the government's quite right in saying the first priority should go to who we need, but the government can set standards and selection standards and choose from the applications. I can't see why not. Who do we really need, and who's going to benefit Canada the most?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Okay.

Mr. Taylor, I appreciate the efforts and the challenges within the restaurant industry, very much so. I think the association does a fabulous job in terms of representation.

Having said that, many will argue that we should look around—there are people in Canada. If we invest in them and we train them, they would be able to fill these jobs.

I for one don't believe that would work. We do need to bring in immigrants, foreign workers, to be able to sustain the industry.

Can you provide a comment to those individuals who would say that within Canada we have enough people to meet those employment opportunities?

[Justin Taylor]

That's a difficult question to answer.

Right now, as a matter of fact, one of my colleagues is testifying before the finance committee. One of our recommendations is to remove many of the disincentives to work, through EI reform and other types of reform.

I do think that the response to labour shortages cannot simply be focused 100% on immigration. Immigration needs to continue to be a component. We are seeing long-term demographic shifts that mean that there will be fewer working-age Canadians. There was a mention earlier about the statistics for just simply replacing our labour force.

We are actively working to try to attract under-represented groups as well—those that are chronically unemployed—but there must be a multi-pronged approach to addressing labour shortages across industries in Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Bhatti, you made reference to the visiting visas, and I want to look specifically in terms of spouses. We talked about parents and grandparents and having those multiple-year visas.

What about where we require visas where spouses would be allowed to come while they're under process? Is this something that you can maybe provide comment on--the benefits of it?

[Roger Bhatti]

This is something that in my experience is very rarely utilized. The instances in which spouses or prospective applicants are granted visas are few and far between.

One of the reasons for that, I would think--to be presumptuous of CIC's approach--is that they fear that a subsequent application would be made from inside Canada, since there is a process to be sponsored within the country. Certainly that could be alleviated if the applicant entered into an undertaking not to file such an application from inside Canada. It could be made binding upon the applicant, and that as well could alleviate some of the discrepancies that we see—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Bhatti, more specifically, it's those individuals who are actually married--they go to India, let's say, or they go to the Philippines, they get married...and allowing their spouses to be able to return using visas.

Could you comment on that?

[Roger Bhatti]

Again, that rarely occurs. Generally when spouses are married in a country such as India or in any country, they have to be sponsored in order to be able to return. If they apply for a visitors visa, they're very likely not going to get it. However, there would be a mechanism to make that easier if the person undertook not to file a sponsorship application from in Canada and actually was required to file from outside Canada before they applied for the visa.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Bhatti.

Mr. Opitz, then Mr. Leung.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To Mr. Bhatti, the NDP has asked for a significant increase in the proportion of family members and refugees we accept every year, compared to economic immigrants, so I want to clarify these proportions.

Family members actually currently constitute the highest proportion of immigrants we let into the country, albeit through different streams. So are you suggesting an increase in the number of family members at the expense of economic immigrants?

[Roger Bhatti]

The way you pose the question is an either/or situation. I think it's a situation where a forward-looking aspect of policy can contemplate increases in both. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation.

We've seen tremendous success in our family reunification program. We've seen tremendous success in our skills immigration programs. I believe it's possible to increase both.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for both Martin Collacott and Justin Taylor.

The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform indicates that there's a tremendous cost associated with training immigrants to perform certain jobs. At the same time, I'm hearing from Mr. Taylor that, yes, we need to bring in these skilled workers to handle some of the first-entry jobs.

There seems to be a mismatch here, because we're faced with retraining our own people and we're training immigrants that we bring in. Why are we not providing this employment opportunity for Canadians?

[Martin Collacott]

As for the immigrants, I think better selection is going to have a better match of their skills with what we require. For instance, on credentials, the Australians require that before someone gets a visa, their credentials are going to be accepted in Australia.

On the other question—it's a broader question, though—if you don't bring in immigrants, wages will go up, including in the restaurant industry, and you're going to have to pay people more money. Both the Economic Council of Canada and David Green at UBC found out that enough people will take training...and when I say “Canadians” will, that includes immigrants already here.

Normal market forces will take care of most, though not all, of the needs; some of them are too long term. Probably 95% of labour shortages will be taken care of when wages go up and more people take the training. It's not as fast as bringing in temporary workers. That's the quick way of doing it. They work hard. You keep wages down that way.

So it's a bit complicated, but those are the basic issues.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

I'd like to hear from Mr. Taylor, please, on that same issue.

[Justin Taylor]

As far as employing more Canadians, we think there need to be steps taken to reduce the disincentives to work in Canada. We have a number of examples across the country where folks are saying that they would prefer to continue to collect employment insurance because of the enriched benefits, versus taking a part-time job or some of the jobs that are available in our sector. So that is a challenge that we think needs to be addressed.

As I mentioned, we are facing a shortage, both in jobs that require a significant amount of formal training, like chefs and bakers and those types of careers, but also in the lower-skilled occupations.

So in terms of this requirement for training, I don't necessarily think our industry faces the same challenges that other industries do face.

As well, often when we're looking at immigration studies about the cost of retraining these immigrants once they arrive in Canada, as I mentioned, our industry is one of the few industries that actually value foreign training in culinary arts, often above Canadian training in culinary art, because of the need for ethnic cuisine specialists.

So I think our situation is a bit different from the traditional numbers you will see.

[Chungsen Leung, Conservative, Willowdale, ON]

Thank you.

I have no more questions.