Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was backlog.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I'd like to give you more time, but I can't. We are down to the last strokes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Yes. It's to allow everyone to get on here.
Mr. Komarnicki is next, and then Mr. Telegdi.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I'd like to thank the witnesses for putting forward their points of view. There certainly have been differences of opinion throughout the day. I appreciate hearing everyone's point of view, but there are some statements that are not correct or in line with the legislation.
I think in fairness—at least to my mind I've established this--the legislation, Bill C-50, does not apply to refugees or refugee applications and protected people inside or outside of Canada. Notwithstanding that some witnesses thought it might, at least two and perhaps even three legal opinions have been offered that this does not apply to that, and some would make a lot out of it.
The other comment made earlier today, speaking generally, was that there is the race issue. I think the witnesses who were lawyers were very clear—and specific, Mr. Pang, to your appreciation and settlement on this issue—that the legislation itself, as it now stands, has to be subject to the charter and all the rights that are guaranteed in the charter, which would include the fact that it must be non-discriminatory. It cannot be based on race, religion, or ethnicity or it would contravene the charter and would not stand the test. It has to stand that test, and people have gone through it in the legal field to ensure that this is the case.
But not only that; this is legislation that proposes the instruction. The consensus as I saw it was that the instruction itself, when it issues, would need to be charter-compliant—not just the legislation, but the instructions flowing from the legislation. In fact, I think there would be a fair opinion that those who apply the instruction would have to apply it in an objective fashion, and again, it would have to be charter-compliant. You cannot issue or apply an instruction in a fashion that would be contrary to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think that came up very clearly in our discussions today. Yet some people seem to insist that there is an element of it in the legislation, when I would say there's not.
The other question is how you resolve the issue of the backlog. Even the former minister from the Liberal Party said you can't just keep taking applications and hoping the problem will resolve itself, because what will happen is that the backlog will continue to grow because of the limitation we have on the number of people who can come into the country through the year. Over the last decade, what has happened under the present system is that many people apply, not everybody gets in, and we have a backlog.
The people who apply aren't exactly aligned properly to the economies of the country. What this legislation has said...and some have even said the minister presently has powers to prioritize the applications to ensure that those best suited to the economic needs of the country can be processed in priority. If that's true, then there's no harm in saying it specifically in the legislation. It's trying to get the right people to the right place at the right time to ensure that they can succeed.
But having said that, ultimately Bill C-50 indicates that instructions must support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the government of the day. The government of the day decides what the policy is going to be, and the instruction must be in line with that policy.
When you think about it, ultimately, if legislation is passed or regulations are passed, the government of the day decides what that legislation or regulation might be, or in this case, the instruction. As one witness indicated, ultimately the government is responsible to the electorate of Canada, who can say, if we don't like the policy you're setting or the legislation you're setting or the regulation you're passing, you won't stand the term of office.
One thing we know is that legislation and regulation takes a lot of time. We've had at least a decade since the act was passed, and there have been no amendments, simply a backlog growing and increasing.
So this is an attempt to say that ultimately the government of the day will set the goals, and if the goal is to prioritize the application to ensure that the skilled or lesser skilled newcomers come into the country, that's the policy decision that's made. And ultimately, they'll have to stand on it.
It's included within the budget, because it provides $109 million over five years to deal with that. So it is a matter of confidence and we'll see whether the opposition will support it or not support it. That's the key question. If they're so sure of it, they need to decide where they stand on it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have about 12 minutes left, so three four-minutes.
Mr. Telegdi, Mr. Carrier, and Ms. Grewal.
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you very much.
You can tell when the parliamentary secretary quotes a former Liberal minister that he's really in trouble and desperate.
He hasn't named a name, but anyway....
Conservative
Liberal
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
The government's into some good old immigrant-bashing. As a former refugee, I know what that means and I understand it. I think there are advantages to be had in the province of Quebec, where the ADQ almost came to power, and then the reasonable accommodation debate.... They're trying to plug into that. I think they're having some success, and that's why they're pushing it.
In terms of his saying that it has to be charter-compliant, well, the security certificate was not charter-compliant for 25 years, and it unduly took away people's rights. Today we hear we're going to have some kind of apology for Komagata Maru, just like there was for the Chinese head tax.
What bothers me is we don't seem to learn from history very well. We're bringing in temporary foreign workers. We brought the Chinese in during the 1880s to build the railway. They were not allowed to bring their families. These temporary foreign workers aren't allowed to bring their families. I ask myself, what kind of Canada do I want? Do I want a Canada where people come here with their families and help build Canada for the long term? Or do we bring in people who, very much like the Chinese when they were brought in during the 1880s, can be exploited? They could be made to work for less and the families could be barred. It was a horrific part of history. But I see analogies between that.
It seems to me that if you're going to build the country, then we want to employ people as immigrants, bring them here as immigrants, bring them here with their families.
I keep reading about all the problems they're having in Fort McMurray, Alberta, because people are up there without their families. They have drug problems, they have alcohol problems, and all sorts of other problems, and this really bothers me. The point system should allow tradespeople in. It should allow labourers in. If you're good enough to work in this country, then we shouldn't use you and look upon you as redundant and try to get rid of you. These are human beings we're dealing with.
I just wonder, Mr. Tan and Roberto, if you could make a comment on that.
National Executive Co-Chair, National Congress of Chinese Canadians
Mr. Chairman, before I reply, I want to recognize my fellow director Albert Tang in the audience—he just stepped out. He's with me here today.
You know, it's a cliché now: immigrants built this country. Now we are debating today whether we want them in here or not. I think the prescription is just wrong to deal with the situation we have. It's the wrong prescription for the problems.
The front-line officers already enjoy a lot of discretion. The immigration officer always has to be satisfied with what we provide, and sometimes it's difficult. You have to wait a lot of time and many years to come to the officer. You have to satisfy him. And he still can make it difficult for you.
We have been talking about this human pool of capital. The old immigration law passed in 1976. It took us 25 years to come with a new one in 2002. We thought we had a good immigration law that set out the framework for people to work, but obviously we are debating this problem because it didn't work out that way. I don't think it is the problem with this framework; it's the problem with how it has been implemented and it will be administered.
So giving more powers, discretional powers, to the minister is just the wrong way to do it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Thank you, Mr. Tan. I'm sorry I had to cut you off, but we do have votes coming up at 6:30.
I'm going to divide six minutes between Mr. Carrier and Ms. Grewal.
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for appearing before us and enlightening us as much as possible in order for us to be able to table our recommendations at the end of next week. I will begin with Mr. Pang. I was surprised to hear you say that you were in favour of the part of the Bill dealing with immigration, the idea being the improvement of the quality of the immigrants we welcome to Canada.
You stated in conclusion that the points system that is in place and is used to evaluate the quality of immigrants is not a good one, and that everything is going to be entrusted to the will of the present minister or her successors. Is that what you said?
Acting President, Chinese Canadian Community Alliance
The point system may be a good system, but there are several factors to it, age being one. We are looking for younger people. Education is a factor. Every year of education will get a point, and this does not necessarily translate into the kind of immigrants we are looking for. As I often maintain, if Canada needs taxi drivers, there are certain qualifications for taxi drivers. Let's bring in the taxi drivers. Let's not bring in a guy with 21 years of education and a PhD to drive a taxi.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
Mr. Pang, you outlined priorities that you believe are good, but the Bill establishes that it is the minister who will define the priorities. Are you already aware of the minister's priorities, priorities which in your view are good?
Acting President, Chinese Canadian Community Alliance
If I read it right, the minister said she will make a decision based on recommendations from the provinces, the trade unions, and various other sources.
Bloc
Robert Carrier Bloc Alfred-Pellan, QC
That is not written into the Bill, Mr. Pang. It simply states that it is the minister who will set the priorities.
Acting President, Chinese Canadian Community Alliance
I don't know whether she said it in Parliament or not, but this association will take her word, and we'll make sure she will deliver.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You have ten seconds left.
I'll go to Ms. Grewal for the last two and a half to three minutes.
Conservative
