Finance Committee on May 14th, 2008

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I know the exotic dancer's an easy example, but let's take family reunification as perhaps a less exciting contrast. If we move forward more quickly with categories or people who are seen as being more desirable in the short term for economic reasons, isn't the necessary implication that many other members of the family class and others will be left further behind?

[James Bissett]

We won't know until the rules come down, but I can foresee the possibility that the minister will give priority to spouses and minor children ahead of parents or grandparents.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Pang, could you comment on the answers of Mr. Bissett? Did you listen to his intervention?

[Tom Pang]

Yes.

The minister has emphasized more than once that these new amendments will not touch the family reunification cases or the refugee cases. There's nothing in there to make me doubt what she said. She emphasized that more than once.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

But you indicated concern about the legislation, if I listened correctly.

[Tom Pang]

No.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

You think this is all very good and positive?

[Tom Pang]

As far as we're concerned, it is.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Ferreira.

[Peter Ferreira]

I'm one who believes that the power should be with cabinet and not the minister. I don't think the minister needs these extra powers.

With all due respect to my colleagues here, and Mr. Bissett in particular, who has much experience in the field of immigration, I'm also a former senior immigration officer. I've been practising immigration law for 32 years now. I think the 10% of China example is fear-mongering. It's possible that 10% to 30% of the population in China may want to emigrate to Canada, but I don't think that should be used in any way against or for this amendment. I think it's a bogus argument. I don't think we should visit that 10%, because there are so many scenarios we don't know about. I don't think it's fair for us to just pick 10%. We might as well go to 50%, assuming they all qualify.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

The reality is that the flow of immigration around the world is going to increase, and the desirability of coming to Canada is going to increase. So from one perspective we either have an official backlog of people who've applied, or we have people who are not allowed to apply but still want to get in. So there will always be more people wanting to come to Canada in any one year than people coming to Canada.

[Peter Ferreira]

That's right. If you recall, the Government of Canada has never met its targets. Years back, all parties were talking about 1% of the population, and that's never happened. It may never happen.

Without being too partisan, the previous government cut back on the overseas complement of staff, and that added to the backlog. It seems like the backlog is being used as a red herring. I don't want to play politics here. I'm trying to be as neutral as I can, and I don't want to dump on any one party. For 32 years I've met and dealt with many ministers of immigration who were well-meaning. Interestingly enough, I recall speaking with Walter McLean, who was a minister under Brian Mulroney. With 35,000 cases in the backlog in Canada, he announced a special program to land all those who were not criminals.

I agree with you, Mr. Rae, that the demand is there. I think we have to manage our immigration program overseas better.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have one more question, but maybe we'll get another round in. We're not so sure.

Monsieur Laforest.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I want to make it clear that I had a question for Mr. Carsley. I don't want him to be lonely, but I'm not allowed to ask it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

He's not going to be lonely down there.

Mr. Laforest, the floor is yours.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Pang, earlier you said that people from the community you represent were in favour of the changes and that others were opposed. Then you told us that you agreed with the change proposals.

What ratio do you represent when you say you agree? What percentage of the Chinese community is in favour of these changes?

[Tom Pang]

I really can't talk about ratios. I can only base it on articles in the newspaper, and such. Different organizations and individuals are putting up their arguments to it. All I'm saying is that the kinds of arguments that were put up against this amendment do not convince me to change my mind.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You say you speak on behalf of the Chinese Canadian Community Alliance, but you don't have a specific voting mandate. You say that the arguments against the changes written in the newspapers don't convince you.

Do you consult the community before appearing before a committee like this one?

[Tom Pang]

I never said we represented any parts of the community. The Chinese community is like any other community. It's so diversified. We're talking about people who come from China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Southeast Asia. They all have their different views.

I represent just this community alliance--our association, our members. We sat down and went through some of the discussions. We came back and discussed, and this is our conclusion.

I never claimed to represent a “community”.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Ferreira, earlier you said you agreed that improvements had to be made to the system and to the reception given to immigrants so that they have more information and support in learning the language.

Do you believe we can make changes to the present act without them necessarily being those proposed in Bill C-50?

[Peter Ferreira]

I think if the current legislation were to work, at this particular time, the way the lawmakers envision it working, we wouldn't be in this situation. I think a lot has to do with priorities that are set by governments. I hinted earlier when I was answering another question that when you gut or take away a substantial amount of money and staff from overseas missions, you're obviously going to get a bottleneck. You're going to get people who just can't be processed. That's a reality.

Regarding the language issue, of course the skilled-worker class has to be fluent in either English or French. They all have to pass an English or French proficiency examination. Most of those don't need language training. The issue, I guess, comes with family class and refugees who are taken in by government and private organizations. I think more can be done for those people, definitely. And more can be done for those who are fluent in both official languages. I think the credentials issue, or lack of recognition, has been an issue all of you have heard of for countless years. One government will turn to the other and say that's a provincial matter; that's not a federal matter.

At the end of the day, we have people who are coming to Canada well qualified. These are people Canada needs. We're talking about doctors, dentists, nurses, you name it, yet they have obstacles that will take some of them three to five years to resolve, and some will just give up, as we heard here today. Some people give up and just leave Canada because of the climate—and I'm not talking about the climate in the true sense. The programs are not there to facilitate the integration of a lot of our immigrants whom we claim to need. At the end of the day, I think a lot more could be done for the immigrant community, because we do want them to integrate quickly, we want them to be self-supporting, and obviously we want them to be giving all they have to Canada. At the end of the day, Canada wins.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

You also say you practised immigration law for many years, particularly in Ontario.

[Peter Ferreira]

In Ontario, yes. I used to work for the Government of Canada as an immigration officer. I left the government and now I'm in private practice.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Are you familiar with the immigration agreement between Quebec and the federal government? When Minister Finley appeared before us, we asked her whether Bill C-50 would make changes to the agreement that already exists between Quebec and the federal government. She told us no.

Is that your view as well?

[Peter Ferreira]

That's a very good question. I don't want to foretell the future, but I think the minister would have difficulties negotiating any amendments with the Quebec government, be it Liberal or any other colour.

As far as the Ontario situation goes, it's obviously totally different from the Quebec situation, as you know. The Quebec government has been selecting its immigrants for countless years. It takes in about 30,000 to 35,000, if I'm not mistaken. Only now has the Ontario government signed an accord, a provincial nominee program last year, to take in 500 immigrants—a very low number. We want that pilot project to become, obviously, more.

In particular, if I may say, I come from the Portuguese-Canadian community, where many are in the construction trades. Two years ago many of these people were targeted and removed from Canada, in spite of the fact that the Conference Board of Canada, their employers, and their unions were suggesting to all who would listen that these people were key to this economy. Obviously, it would be self-serving for me to argue for my community, but I'm not just arguing for my community, but other communities, which is why I mentioned Ireland as well as Portugal. I didn't want anyone to suggest I'm here to speak for one community alone.

More needs to be done. The family class is in shatters. Why should we be waiting four to six years for a mother or father to join us in Canada? Why is it so? Why are they not given priority? Some would say, “Well, you know, parents aren't going to give us anything”. Then, as a government and as members of Parliament, you have to stop going from reception to reception saying “We need more; we believe in family reunification”.