Finance Committee on May 14th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Menzies for seven minutes.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you, thank you to our witnesses for coming today.

There are some interesting observations from all of you. It's interesting, we have one person who's interested in tax policies here today, but please forgive me if I don't focus on that, because we seem to have gotten a little bit sidetracked on the immigration issues. Frankly, I think this government has been wrongly criticized by some of our witnesses and by our opposition as well on the intent of this.

Mr. Bissett, I certainly respect your credentials when it comes to immigration and therefore certainly respect your answers that I'm looking forward to hearing on this. I would like to go back to this 945,000 or whatever the number of the backlog is and the system we now have in place. We're working as fast as we can to get rid of that backlog we inherited. The other day the minister told us that last year alone saw the largest number of newcomers in almost 100 years, 430,000.

We've heard that just throwing money at it isn't going to help. We need to change the system, improve the system, make it more effective, and be able to clear up the other issue that is facing us, and that's the labour shortages in this country, skilled labour, bright people who we need to stimulate our economy.

How do we decrease that number? And is that number accurate, or have those people just given up on Canada and gone somewhere else?

[James Bissett]

I don't know. I suspect, though, that of the 950,000 or whatever it is, most of them are still there. Most of them would still want to come.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

After ten years, do you think they're still waiting in line? I can't believe someone would put their life on hold for that long.

[James Bissett]

I think 30-some percent are relatives of Canadians who are already here, so they'll certainly be there. The others, I think, are still gainfully employed in their own countries and are waiting until they get a decision, so there's no reason why they would necessarily go unless they left for another country, which is a possibility, of course.

I have no idea, but I would suspect most of them, if given the opportunity to come to Canada, even if they may have moved to another country, would still take that opportunity and get back quickly to get their visa.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

But do you see some mechanism in part 6 of this budget bill that will allow us to provide a more effective system as well as cutting down or getting rid of that backlog?

[James Bissett]

The proposed regulations don't touch the backlog, so that's the problem. Now, the minister has said she's asking for, I think, $27 million over two years to hire additional officers who can concentrate on the backlog, but other than that, I don't see much impact being made on that backlog.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

It is unfortunate we ended up going from where we were, from 50,000 to 800,000 or 900,000, wherever we're at.

There has been lots of reference to the Australian system, and we were on a similar system, or up until this passes I guess we were on a similar point system, referred to as a human capital model. Australia has moved away from that. I'm sure you're familiar with that; with your background you must have followed that. They've overhauled theirs, and it's become a more efficient system.

In any country I've travelled to recently, the Australian system has been held up not only for getting skilled labour in, but also for bringing students into their country. What else can we do to make our..? Is the Australian model something we need to pattern ours after? Is this close enough to it that it will make the difference that it has in Australia?

[James Bissett]

Actually, the Australians copied our system, the point system, which we designed. As a matter of fact, I was on the task force that designed it. I hate to tell you when. Back in 1967 we designed the point system, and the Australians did copy it. They have made some improvements in it, I think, that I'm not sure we would want to do. For instance, they insist on people being able to speak English before they arrive in Australia. With regard to professionals, they will not accept any professional applicants until their qualifications have been accepted by the Australian states or provinces. We let professionals in, even though we know and we tell them they won't be able to qualify to practise their profession until they get the licence to practise, primarily from the province. Australia doesn't let them in until they have already have that permission.

There are parts of the Australian system that we should perhaps study and maybe adapt. The key thing with their system is that they keep control of the numbers. For one thing, they don't take nearly as many immigrants as we do on a per capita basis. I think they take about 0.44%, while we're taking close to 1%. So they don't have the numbers to deal with. They seem to be more efficient, and they certainly are getting highly skilled people. I don't think their selection criteria emphasize education to the same degree ours do. They're looking for skilled people. Whether they're upholsterers or mechanics, if they are needed in Australia there are selection criteria that are designed to get those kinds of people. At the moment, our selection criteria are weighted heavily for education, so a lot of skilled workers cannot possibly meet our criteria.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

So you're suggesting that although the Australian model is working very well, ours is probably going to end up superior through these changes? I thank you for that comment.

[James Bissett]

We'll see.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Time is up.

We'll now move to Monsieur Mulcair.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, I want to thank Mr. Carsley for his presentation. Holding degrees in common law and civil law as he does, I thank him for his presentation.

That is the case elsewhere, but clearly, particularly in finance, an effort has to be made to respect the fact that Canada is a bilingual and bijural country. That's a major challenge. Having previously had to deal with people from the Department of Finance, I realize that everything there is done exclusively in English. So I'm not surprised at the difficulties. I must also congratulate you for your sense of sacrifice. This is the first time I've heard one of my colleagues come here and say we should eliminate something costly. While congratulating you on that sense of sacrifice, I'm going to tell you that you will have our support because, in addition to being very clear, your presentation deserves the amendment requested.

Mr. Ferreira, I want to congratulate you. You expressed with such class what many people think when they hear Mr. Bissett make his presentation. I have had the opportunity to hear him say exactly the same thing. He seems to have a very strong concern for exotic dancers. This is not the first time I've heard him talk about it. Your term “fear-mongering” precisely defines what that is about. It is fear-mongering; that is to say it is playing with the basest feelings instead of leading us toward the highest, the most noble. I want to thank you. I also agree with you that his arguments are bogus, as you said in English, which I would take the liberty of translating into French as “factices”. That is precisely what they are.

Since you are a lawyer and a member of the bar and have been practising immigration law for a very long time, perhaps you can tell us a little about the effect that can have on families. I know you are in your community, but that you're not just speaking on behalf of the Portuguese community. I also congratulate you on being the founder of the Portuguese-Canadian National Congress. Perhaps you can tell us a little more directly about the effect that can have on people and families, in particular.

[Peter Ferreira]

Most of my day is taken up in speaking with clients who cannot understand why the government is continuing to keep their loved ones from joining them.

We're not talking about people who have health issues or criminal issues. We're talking about people who qualify, who are joining their sons, their daughters. In most cases, they have to wait for four years; for Asians, it's more like six. This is quite shattering for families. It's devastating.

At the end of the day, the family class should not be targeted as they are. Some would argue that there are economic reasons for giving them such a low priority. We don't want them to come and take advantage of our social safety net. If we truly believe that, the government should be clear and say they don't want the family class. We cannot say that we're doing everything for the family class and then give them almost no priority.

I'm not here just to argue for the family class. I think we could do more. A few years ago, the system seemed to be working quite well. Most of my clients, at one point, were going to Kingston, Jamaica. The embassy there was processing Asian clients of mine in three to six months.

A mission in Kingston, Jamaica, with two officers could process dozens of applicants in a matter of three to six months. Now the same mission is taking two to three years for people from Jamaica. We're not talking about people who are coming from outside. We can no longer lodge applications outside. There was good reason for that. This was one of the things that I didn't mind. It was an instruction that came from the then-minister—one had to apply where one lived.

The minister has the power to create lists of occupations that she wants to facilitate, as unfair as that is. Imagine waiting six to eight years. Let's use the movie scenario. You buy a ticket to watch a movie, and you're in line, but then a security guard comes to you and says you're not allowed into the theatre. You say you see seats that are still vacant, and the guard tells you that even though there's a place for you he is choosing not to let you in.

This is what some of us who oppose the amendments are afraid of. It may never happen. Maybe I'm scaremongering, but I don't believe so. I've heard too many immigration ministers promise the sky. Unfortunately, most of them have not even come close to what they've promised.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

I want to ask another question that has to do with the recognition of foreign credentials. Statistics Canada informs us that the number-one cause of poverty among immigrants is the failure to recognize foreign credentials. Mr. Bissett's spoke of the exotic dancer who would be replaced in line by a nurse. The problem occurs when there's no place to retrain people in the provinces—the provinces are 100% responsible for professional licensing.

Is there anything in the bill before us that would in any way ease the recognition of a nurse's professional credentials?

[Peter Ferreira]

Unfortunately, I don't see it. I'm not sure if the minister will go down that road. I don't see it at this juncture. It's sad to say—and we hear this as a joke—that we have some of the world's best-educated taxi fleets in Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. It shows where we are right now as a nation in respect to our immigrants. It doesn't say much for what we're doing for them.

A lot of these people are giving up high-paying jobs. The Government of Canada is luring these people to Canada, only to give them the excuse that their problems are a provincial matter. Because the provinces regulate nurses and doctors and engineers, the federal government says it can't get involved. That's sad, and I think it has to stop. If this passes, I hope the minister addresses this concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. McCallum.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My apologies for missing most of the presentations.

I'd like to start with Mr. Carsley, not just because he might be feeling lonely, but also because his subject is one I've had some involvement with. Just over a year ago I met with a Mr. Dover on this subject, and I wrote to Mr. Flaherty. You're seeking what should be a relatively simple amendment to the Canada Interest Act, and that's what I wrote in support of a year ago.

If I understand correctly, the government had the intent of acceding to your request, but there were some unintended consequences in the delivery. Is that a fair statement?

[Fred Carsley]

It seems that way. When we first saw the proposed legislation, after the bill went through second reading in the House and it became public, we saw this, and the industry was frankly pretty nervous about what a prescribed mortgage is and what a prescribed entity is. We met with the people from the Department of Finance to see what they had in mind and explained some of the concerns they had.

They told us that what they're trying to achieve in terms of prescribed entities is limited partnerships and trusts. I said that sounded good. In terms of prescribed mortgages, all they were trying to do was ensure it was on a going-forward basis and there was no retroactive effect. My reaction to that was that I never thought there was a presumption in the law of retroactivity, but if they felt that was important because they didn't want to upset existing transactions, it wasn't of great concern to me.

Then I asked why we can't just put it in the law. The answer was “We just can't”.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Am I correct in thinking that relatively simple amendments to the existing legislation would be able to meet your needs?

[Fred Carsley]

Absolutely.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I would think this is an entirely non-partisan matter. There's not a political ounce in it.

[Fred Carsley]

There's absolutely nothing political about this. I can tell you all players in the commercial real estate industry want this.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Perhaps I might have a chat at some point with Mr. Menzies. I know the government doesn't like amendments, but if this is simple, totally technical, and non-political, maybe they could conceivably be open to that, but I won't raise that with him now.

I have a question for Mr. Bissett. I was intrigued, and again I think this is a non-partisan—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I just want to remind the committee that we answer to Parliament and we report to Parliament. You can talk to Mr. Menzies, but that's got nothing to do with the committee.