Thank you.
I am here today representing the Canadian Council for Refugees. We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-50.
As many of you already know, CCR is a coalition of over 170 organizations throughout Canada. We have tabled with the Committee a letter we sent to the Prime Minister on Bill C-50. This letter, or a similar one, was signed by over 40 organizations, including the three major provincial umbrella organizations, TCRI in Quebec, OCASI in Ontario and AMSSA in British Columbia. These organizations represent several hundred other groups.
First, in commenting on the amendments, there is wide agreement that there is a problem in the immigration system leading to backlogs. Having said that, we do not believe the proposed amendments are the best way to address the problem.
There are some concerns about the process. On the lack of consultation, the proposed amendments were introduced without the normal prior consultation with stakeholders. This means the proposal has not had the benefit of the full range of perspectives. Secondly, the amendments do not belong in the budget bill. They should be dealt with through separate legislation debated on its own merits.
On lack of explanatory information, discussion over the amendments has been severely hampered by the lack of adequate information to explain the proposed changes, leading to widespread confusion and uncertainty. For several weeks there has been confusion about whether the proposed new instructions apply to family class. They do. The government has not helped the situation by constantly confusing the powers actually in the bill and the government's intentions with respect to the use of these powers in the short term.
That brings me to my next point: intentions are not law. As parliamentarians considering whether or not to pass a law, you must ask yourself how the law might be used in the future, not just how the current government proposes to use the new powers. Expressions of current intention are no protection against future uses of the powers in very different ways.
Our recent experience with IRPA, section 117, shows the dangers of relying on ministerial promises. When IRPA was debated in Parliament in 2001, the then Minister Elinor Caplan promised that section 117, which criminalizes people smuggling, would never be used against humanitarians helping refugees. Despite those promises, in 2007, a church worker, Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, was arrested and charged with people-smuggling under section 117 for accompanying refugees to the Canadian border. Inevitably we must ask ourselves what would prevent a future minister from ignoring the commitments made by Minister Finley about how the amendments would be used and applying the new powers in very different ways.
Concretely--and briefly--I will list our major concerns with the new powers given by the bill.
These amendments gave the minister far too much discretion, allowing her to change the rules at will.
These amendments will allow the minister to issue “instructions“ without any parliamentary supervision or mandatory consultations. The fact that the rules for accepting immigrants can be determined and changed by ministerial fiat will create uncertainty, a lack of transparency and make the immigrant selection process vulnerable to inappropriate political pressure.
The amendments eliminate the right to permanent residency for applicants who follow the law.
The amendments eliminate the right to have one's application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds considered if it is made from outside of Canada. The legislation will allow for the return of these applications or for simply discarding them.
So why is the overseas H and C application important? To follow on some of the remarks of Barbara Jackman, I will list two situations where the law does not provide children with the right to family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate applications are the only recourse.
First, separated refugee children in Canada cannot apply for family reunification with their parents and siblings who are outside Canada. The only way for these children to be reunited with their parents and siblings is through H and C.
Secondly, the excluded family member rule, regulation 117(9)(d), keeps many children unfairly separated from their parents and separates spouses. The only way for affected families to overcome the exclusion is through H and C.
We recently published compelling profiles of families, many of them refugees, kept separate as a result of this rule.
The government has suggested that they would continue to examine all family-related H and C applications. However, this is only an expression of intention. If you pass this bill in its present form, a future government could issue instructions leading to family-related H and C applications not being examined.
It is also important to recognize that there are other compelling situations not related to family reunification where an H and C application is the only recourse. They might never be examined if this bill is passed.
In conclusion, the immigration program needs to value immigrants. The proposed amendments come in the context of, and contribute to, a disturbing shift towards the use of immigration primarily to meet Canadian employers' needs, without regard to broader Canadian interests. This includes the problematic increasing reliance on temporary work permits. Canada needs to consider immigrants as full participants in society, not simply as disposable units to fill currently available jobs.
This means recognizing the need for effective and efficient family reunification policies and practices so that immigrants can be with their families. Yet the government is not addressing chronic problems that mean some children spend years separated from their parents.
Finally, our recommendation is that the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-50 and dealt with as a separate piece of legislation.
Thank you.