Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 31st, 2008

[Erika Del Carmen Fuchs]

Yes, permanent resident status and not under the point system--that's the problem, right?

[Lualhati Alcuitas]

We also believe that those types of reforms or changes to the program would improve the conditions of the caregivers. But at the same time, if you look at it, our call is really to grant them permanent residency so they are not vulnerable to abuses because of their temporary status. Implementing those changes would not affect that. They would still have temporary status here in Canada.

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

That's unless they come in as landed immigrants.

[Lualhati Alcuitas]

That's right.

[Erika Del Carmen Fuchs]

And it should not be made contingent on the employer's evaluation.

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

Right. They would come in as a live-in caregiver but would be allowed to go from employer one to employer two. If they were abused by their employer, they wouldn't have to worry about having their visa terminated, finding another job, applying again, waiting, and all of that. They would be able to do all 24 months within 36.

[Lualhati Alcuitas]

That would improve the delay we find in processing the work permit, so that might also improve their chances of applying for permanent residency. But there's also the fact that the majority of women coming from the Philippines to work under the live-in caregiver program are professionals in the Philippines. There are also nurses who come because their nursing profession is not granted any occupational points under the current point system. So we have a nursing shortage and crisis here in Canada, but nurses are working under the program. What we see is really a racist policy within the nursing regulatory boards and associations that are making it very difficult for them to move out of the program into nursing.

So really, if these women were allowed to come to Canada to work in their professions, and the Canadian government seriously looked at supporting fully the child care and health care programs, we wouldn't have this problem.

[Tung Chan]

If I may, the essential point I'm trying to make is that those workers are not accessing the existing services. If we can find a way to get the message to them so they can access organizations, such as the ones here on the panel, that would be very useful. Right now there are not many people accessing those services. As I mentioned, in Alberta there is an advocacy office to help. We don't have that in B.C.

That brings me to another point on the national characteristics of our services to temporary foreign workers. Different provinces have different sets of rules and levels of service. If we are really serious about it, we should have a national standard, much like our health care act. If you are a new Canadian here, we should provide you with language training up to a certain level. I don't see why we cannot do that.

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

The minister has recently said that people are waiting too long and are going to other countries, that we need more nurses and doctors, so bring them in faster.

You're saying there are nurses and doctors in Canada already who can do the job if they are given some kind of support--if that support is extended across all the provinces. They would be able to perform jobs where there are labour shortages now in Canada. That's what I'm hearing you say.

[Tung Chan]

That's exactly what I'm saying. In fact, I was on a panel sitting next to the human resources director for Vancouver Coastal Health, and she was so proud of herself that she was able to go to England to recruit nurses from England. A few years ago it was 100, and last year they were able to recruit 150. But if you look at the demographics of the lower mainland, the region she is supporting, in fact a lot of the seniors living here are either Punjabi-speaking or Chinese-speaking. They do not speak English.

At the same time, we have nurses and medical professionals who are trained in China and trained in the Philippines, and we're not utilizing their qualifications. We need to have a national standard, a framework to recognize credentials.

If we're serious about that, there is no reason we cannot have the college of nurses go to the Philippines and find out what training is provided through the nursing college in the Philippines, find out what kind of gap exists, and provide training for those people so that we can close the gap.

In the lower mainland, just in South Fraser alone, there are 2,100 nurses--

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

Mr. Chan, I know, but allow me to jump in because I'm going to run out of time.

We did have a program in the 1970s and 1980s for nurses from the Philippines. There was an agreement that allowed them to basically come here and work yearly without going through all that. Right?

[Tung Chan]

Right.

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

That's something we should go back to from day one, so that we don't have to do the work once they're here. Let's have the agreement so they can just come after--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We have five or six minutes left. Please go ahead, Ms. Grewal.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. German, you mentioned in your presentation that most current temporary foreign workers are separated from their families for the duration of their stay when they are in Canada. What do you see as the pros and cons of this aspect of the policy? Could you please explain the details?

[Mildred German]

Well, if you look at the policies, for example, with the live-in caregiver program, the experience of the Filipino community with this immigration policy is that youth are separated from their parents for an average of five years. That was a study done at the University of British Columbia.

In many cases, the separation is longer, so most newly arrived Filipino youth are faced with the trauma of family separation, reunification, and migration. That has a tremendous impact on the Filipino community. How can you imagine being separated from your parents for five years or more? Being a Filipino youth and growing up without your parents is so hard. It's affecting not only the migrant workers, but also the children left behind. This is not just a violation of the migrant workers' rights to be with their families; it is also violating the rights of the children back home to be with their parents.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, I will pass the rest of my time on to Mr. Komarnicki.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I'll just ask Lualhati a question about the live-in caregiver program. Am I to take from what you're saying that if there aren't changes made to it, you would sooner see the program not being used at all?

[Lualhati Alcuitas]

That's correct. We are also looking at supporting the call of SIKLAB to scrap the live-in caregiver program, because as we see it, it's fundamentally flawed and creating the conditions for all kinds of abuse and violation of human rights.

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

Mr. Chan, I appreciate your indication that there should be an amnesty for undocumented workers. There are many compassionate cases--there is no doubt about that--but in the system there are, as you know, many legitimate people who are trying to go through the system. Are you suggesting they should be given priority over that?

Second, part of what we heard earlier was that the reason you might have undocumented workers, if you want to call them that, is that there's no legitimate means for them to come in. I'm wondering what your thoughts might be with respect to changing the immigration system to ensure that the needs they are filling are met by legitimate means, such as the provincial nominee program. There are a host of other programs that are working. That's just one that comes to mind to ensure they can come through legitimate means.

That having been said, if we designed the programs to give a legitimate way, do you not have to somehow deal with the undocumented workers through some means other than an amnesty, because they must have to go through some sort of legitimate process? I'd like to have your thoughts on that.

[Tung Chan]

I appreciate the question. Indeed, to put it succinctly, our current system is broken. We need to fix it.

If our system were working, if our skilled worker immigrant process—the 600 cases we have—were working and it did not take six years to come here, the construction companies or companies that very much need these workers could simply be asked to apply. I recently came across a situation where a construction company legitimately applied to have temporary workers come here from China. They interviewed people, 45 of them, and all of them were turned down. So our system is not working, and that is the root cause of what is happening with undocumented workers.

What I'm suggesting is that we must have a two-pronged approach. There's no reason why we should choose A or B; we can actually choose to do this on a parallel basis. We already have people who are now working in our construction industries illegally as undocumented workers, and maybe some of them are being exploited, but why don't we recognize them and allow them to become permanent residents so they can start paying taxes and access health care, so that their kids and wife can come and join them?

For the other people currently in the queue, we should find a way to expedite their application process and to go forward with a new process, as suggested by the current bill before the House to amend the immigration act, which would allow the ministry at least some form of flexibility to bring in much-needed workers.

If we can fill those needs, then the need for undocumented workers might start to wane and we might not have this problem. So to me, it's not an either/or answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think we will bring it to a close right there. I want to thank you for coming before the committee with a very, very interesting presentation indeed. Thank you.

We've kept the Canadian Bar Association and the Law Society of British Columbia and the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners waiting for over an hour. We do apologize for that. We'll try to get under way within a couple of minutes. We invite you to come to the table and we will get on with it.

I just want to inform the members of the committee, while I have a moment here, that Ms. Grewal has invited everyone to supper at her house—the entire committee, that is--approximately half an hour after the meeting.

I want to welcome to our meeting, from the Canadian Bar Association, Mr. Alex Stojicevic; from the Law Society of British Columbia, Carmel Wiseman, who is a lawyer for the policy and legal services department; and from the Canadian Society of Immigration Practitioners, Nancy Salloum, chairperson, and Elie Hani, vice-chair.

Thank you for coming. Sorry to keep you waiting, but we got off to a very shaky start. If you were here, you saw that.

In the meantime, you know what the procedure is, and I'll pass it over to you, Alex.

[Alex Stojicevic, Chair, National Citizenship and Immigration Law Section, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you for this opportunity to speak to you today, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, about some important issues that you are travelling across the country to study. I've heard some of the discussion that occurred before us here, and you certainly have a lot of lively issues that you're considering.

I don't envy you your task of balancing a lot of different regulatory or legislative changes and their impact, as well as conflicting priorities that you're being asked to look for here.

I speak to you as chair of the citizenship and immigration law section of the Canadian Bar Association. The CBA is a voluntary association of approximately 37,000 lawyers, notaries, law teachers, and students across Canada. My section has approximately 900 members who practise immigration law across the country. Our mandate includes seeking improvement in the law and administration of justice, and that's the lens through which I am speaking to you today.

I would like to address specifically two of the issues you have raised, although given the liveliness of some of the other things you've talked about, I have views also on the live-in caregiver program and other programs. But I'll leave that for the members.

In any event, the two issues in particular—and you have copies of my speaking notes—are the impact of Bill C-17 on temporary foreign workers and the issue of undocumented, as well as licensed, immigration consultants.

We've raised our concerns with the government about both of these issues. We do have existing submissions to the minister's office on both.

Our concern with Bill C-17 really flows from the broad and relatively unreviewable powers it gives the minister, which, in our view, risk eroding the rule of law, plain and simple. We think the existing measures within IRPA and the existing regulations and processing procedures can be used more effectively to meet the government's objectives. In many instances, including as far as Bill C-17 is concerned, in terms of the stated goal, which was to protect certain workers such as strippers from being exploited, it can be done in other ways that don't require Bill C-17. Ministerial instructions are too severe and too unnecessary an approach to take when, instead, strong guidelines from the minister's office would likely achieve the same goal.

Also, we wonder if it's necessary to have a system of ministerial instructions centralizing power in the minister's office when we have a handful of these stripper visas issued to begin with. I've heard conflicting reports of between 4, 18, and 20. It seems not very many to really have to change a law. If that's the principal motivation, we question that somewhat.

The existing act and the existing procedures provide for transparency and objectivity that we feel Bill C-17 erodes. We have some of the same concerns on the government bill that was put forward, I'm told, in the House today, Bill C-50. If you take a system that's already difficult for the end user, that at least now has some rights accruing to the end user by the use of such words as “shall” be issued a work permit, or “shall” be issued a temporary resident visa or permanent resident visa, and if you erode that objectivity by changing the language to “may” or by having a scheme of ministerial instructions, you make it that much more complicated.

That's the danger of eroding the language in the act, as far as we're concerned now, even though we recognize that there are some really legitimate public policy objectives that inform some of these two bills. Certainly, we applaud the government for moving forward on those objectives. It's just that I'm not sure legislative changes, especially the ones that are being contemplated, are necessary for those objectives.

We ask that you recommend that the government use the measures that exist in the act, rather than the issuance of ministerial directions, to fulfill these legitimate public policy directions.

The cornerstone, in our view, of the proper administration of justice is transparency, and our concerns with the direction the government has taken with Bill C-17 and with a number of legislative initiatives, including the other one that I alluded to, Bill C-50, is to sacrifice clarity and transparency for the sake of giving more direct control over processing issues to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. This trend, in our view, will have the net effect of centralizing authority over processing in the hands of the minister and the department, rather than where it exists now, which is within the body of the regulations.

It is a very interesting line that we're taking. The minister has gone on public record today as saying that any changes she puts forward in these ministerial instructions, under both bills, will involve consultation with stakeholders and will also be pre-published and gazetted. As far as that's concerned, we applaud the minister, but what about the next minister or the minister after that? Once these powers—the ministerial instruction power under Bill C-17 and also, potentially, under Bill C-50, the ability to pick and choose which immigrant visa categories that are already provided for in regulation can be moved forward.... We are concerned that this centralization isn't necessary for the government to meet its immigration objectives. What's more, it causes a risk of abuse down the road from either the department or from a future immigration minister, if not this one, using it in ways that are fundamentally undemocratic and that will not allow immigration changes to be properly debated, in this body or any other, but rather will involve senior government officials talking to other senior government officials to make policy.

We recognize the need for flexibility, and we recognize that the minister and the government are dealing with some very complicated and challenging problems, balancing numerous different and competing policy goals. This has been the reality of our system for as long as I've practised immigration law. It's not an easy balance to maintain.

Certainly building a system that's responsive to both Canada's current economic needs and long-term economic needs as well as its humanitarian objectives is a challenging one. Despite the fact that this goal requires a certain degree of flexibility to adapt to economic changes, it must not be at the price of a system that uses objective criteria. This risks the use of arbitrariness, upon which I've already commented, and essentially allows the minister to override objective criteria that are already contained in regulations, and this, we feel, is wrong. Canadians want transparency.

Another issue I want to address today is immigration consultants. I have a lot of personal knowledge of the history of this brief in particular. It was the Law Society of British Columbia that brought forward the Mangat case in the late 1990s, which resulted ultimately in the Supreme Court of Canada deciding that there was a role for immigration consultants to play if they were regulated. What we have is the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants as a result.

I want to address two issues there. First, the Canadian Bar Association has some concerns that at the moment CSIC appears to be poorly funded to handle disciplinary measures. It is at least worth investigating how good a job they are doing so far in terms of disciplining their members. Do they have the budget to do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have gone into eight minutes. Can you address some of these points in the question period?