Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm going by the clock.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If it were anybody else on this side, you would have cut into their time. You didn't cut into his time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm sorry, I'm going by the clock. Please, order.

If you can get your colleagues to agree, you can go first on the next round. So please restrain yourself, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, it's not an issue of my restraining myself. It's been the practice that, if somebody raises a point of order, you eat into their time. That's the practice, sir, that you followed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We gave everyone equal—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

If you're changing your mind right now, let us know for the future that you will respect that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We gave equal time to everyone. And I very often do that; when points of order are raised, I will begin the member's time when the points of order are over. That's an established practice.

Thank you, gentlemen and ladies, for your submissions today. Please be assured that we will take your submissions into account.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, here is just a point of order while people are waiting. I think it's useful to tell all witnesses in future that the present schedule is that there will be three days of witnesses and by Thursday we'll write the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, that's a good point.

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

That way they'll know, because sometimes they ask.

Then it will be at finance committee the Tuesday after next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Very good point. Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order. We're on a fairly tight time schedule. We'll call our witnesses to the table.

We're on a fairly tight time schedule, members of the committee, because we have votes this evening at 6:30. We have to leave here at 6:30 sharp to get to our votes. So please do not jump on the chair if he has to keep everyone to a strict timeline, okay?

Order, please.

I'm pleased to welcome today, for the next hour, 4:30 to 5:30, the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants; the Perley-Robertson, Hill and McDougall law firm; and....

Is Mr. Cohen here yet?

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

He's running over now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

He's coming? Okay. Mr. Cohen will be appearing as an individual.

We also have John Ryan. Welcome again, Mr. Ryan. It's good to see you.

We will begin our meeting now. I think you're all aware of how it works. You have seven minutes for an opening statement.

Mr. Qayyum, go ahead.

[Imran Qayyum, Vice-Chair, Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me start this afternoon by thanking the standing committee for its invitation to the society to present our views on Bill C-50. My name is Imran Qayyum. I'm the vice-chair of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants. I'm here today with my colleague Mr. John Ryan, the chair and acting CEO of the society.

The board of directors at the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants supports the government's proposed legislation to streamline Canada's economic-stream immigration processing. Our support is based on the CSIC mandate to protect the public interest and the need to protect the interests of applicants seeking to come to Canada. It is our view that individuals and families waiting in immigration-processing backlogs face uncertainties and a lack of timely resolution that undermines the stability of families and brings the overall Canadian immigration program into disrepute. We need to be mindful that each of the 926,000 candidates currently in the immigration application backlog represents a husband, a wife, a mother, a father, sister, brother, and children—all of whom dream of making Canada their home. We need a system that provides Canada with the needed skills in a timely manner, and not in five to seven years from now.

Given the minister's testimony that the backlog, if not addressed, will balloon to an estimated 1.5 million--with a ten-year processing time--by 2012, the status quo is not acceptable. Of most concern to the society is a pattern of abuse we have identified whereby ghost agents accept money from unsuspecting immigration applicants. These agents promise quick processing of their application, only to disappear with the person's money, leaving the applicant in the breach, unrepresented and vulnerable.

The best traditions of Canadian immigration call for transparency and openness in the immigration processing system. The current backlogs and disproportionate immigration-processing times cause a perception that the system is unfair and not transparent. In our opinion, this situation severely harms the legitimate interests of both the Canadian public and the consumer. Further, the existence of backlogs fosters an environment in which unscrupulous ghost agents may prosper by preying upon applicants left increasingly vulnerable by an inefficient system.

CSIC understands that the policies the minister puts in place to implement the proposed new regulations will be crucial to the success of the process. CSIC expects these new economic-stream selection policies to be developed with great care and in keeping with the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. At the same time, the policies must respect the foundation objectives of Canada's Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, including universality, family reunification, and non-discrimination.

We believe the minister should be applauded for efforts to try to tackle this problem. While the proposed regulatory process may not be perfect, it is an initiative for which we are prepared to give the minister the benefit of the doubt and the flexibility she needs to develop fair and transparent policies to eliminate the backlog.

CSIC will be watching the policy development arising from the new regulations to ensure that the minister delivers on her promises, that the interests of consumers of immigration services will be protected, and that immigration applicants are treated fairly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, sir.

Welcome, Mr. Creates. I want to welcome Mr. Cohen now as well.

Whoever is next, please go right ahead.

[Warren Creates, Head, Immigration Law Group, Perley-Robertson, Hill and McDougall LLP]

Thanks for asking me to participate in this important piece of your parliamentary business.

When this legislation was introduced on March 14, I was on national television that night--it was a Friday--speaking in support of it. With reflection and in the fullness of time, I have considered it more carefully and want to share my thoughts with you.

The minister announced on that day that this legislation would reduce the backlog; would restrict the size and cost of maintaining a large and outdated inventory; would result in faster processing; would result in improved service--or, as she was quoted saying, just-in-time inventory--aimed at reducing the wait time to an average of one year; would make the system more responsive and nimble to immediate regional economic needs by listing and selecting strategic or priority occupations; and really, we couldn't continue to build a warehouse that would occupy these hundreds of thousands of applications, when every year we were selecting only about 250,000 to get visas.

Those were the political comments made at the time in support of the legislation, and I was one who then supported the initiative. Now I'm a very different person as I appear in front of you today. I've gone 180 degrees, because it's clear to me now what effect this legislation is going to have.

First of all, it's going to move some categories of applicants to the front of the line and delay other categories. As the minister continues to move categories to the front of the line, including the Canada experience class that we'll see at the end of this summer, there is no front of the line any more. There are so many priority silos in the business of this government now. I'll list them for you: interdiction, enforcement, refugees, visitors, students, work permits, spouses, children, provincial nominee programs, and soon the expanded Canada experience class. It's not going to be possible, with this legislation and the existing platform of resources, to deliver the promises of this minister. There is no front of the line.

What I find particularly heinous or egregious is proposed subsection 87.3(2), which talks about the opinion of the minister. The legislation says: The processing of applications and requests is to be conducted in a manner that, in the opinion of the Minister, will best support the attainment of the immigration goals

Since when do we live in a country where the minister decides what happens with something as important as the immigration program?

Our immigration officers in Canada and outside Canada should never be accountable to the minister. They should instead be accountable to our Constitution, our charter, the legislation and laws of this country, this House, and this parliamentary process that gets the views of stakeholders. That's what's important.

We're going to see in this legislation the erosion of the sacred rule of law principle that this country is built on. Democracy is shrinking because of Bill C-50. Processing priorities, which we have already decided by a tried, tested, and true established and transparent parliamentary procedure for both legislative and regulatory change, will now be reduced to stakeholder input.

There's a high risk of political influence by certain industry sectors and industry groups that are favoured by and supported by the party in power. Certain industries, employers, unions, and professional bodies will use this political influence to either include or exclude occupations to further their own selfish interests. Democracy and advantage slips from being open, transparent, and controlled by consensus and majority, to being controlled by the privilege of a few.

The proposed changes concentrate far too much arbitrary power and authority in the minister and his or her officials. This is totalitarian and anti-Canadian.

This legislation talks about cabinet approval. That is not sufficient. There's no parliamentary input. There's no political accountability. There are no public stakeholder consultations.

The change to the humanitarian and compassionate category that's found in proposed section 25 in the bill--that we “shall” examine cases if the applicant is in Canada, and that we “may” examine cases outside Canada--is egregious and heinous. What is the distinction between a humanitarian and compassionate case inside Canada compared to one outside Canada?

We know what a humanitarian and compassionate case is. We know it when we see one. In fact, the department has policies to assess such cases. Why should it matter if the desperate case is in Canada or outside Canada? There will not be a flood of outside-Canada applications, which is consistent with what a previous witness had to say.

All right, so what are the alternatives? I've criticized it enough. I handed the clerk my brief last week, and you're going to get a copy of it. There are plenty of alternatives. We can invest in processing resources. Treasury Board can do it tonight. We can add officers to the existing platforms. We can train those officers to be more skilled and more productive. Invest in training, invest in processing resources, and we will all be rewarded.

Most important, we can increase the federal skilled worker pass mark from the current 67, which created this backlog. Lorne Waldman told you this backlog started six years ago, and he's roughly right. You know, these cases take four, five, six years to process. So let's say it was zero six years ago, when IRPA came into force in June 2002. That's when we saw a 67-point pass mark. It had been 76, if you remember, and then it went to 72 and 70, and it's down as low as 67. Well, the reason we have the backlog is because we have 67 points on the pass mark. Just change that, just tweak that. Increase it to 72, and we won't see this flood of applications and the resources required to change it.

Anyway, the rest of my alternatives are in my brief. I have about eight suggestions in there, which taken collectively.... If you pick four of them, we're going to have the better system that's accountable and transparent.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Do you have any opening statements, Mr. Cohen?

[David Cohen, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

I do have a presentation. My colleague has said a number of the things that I was going to say. I presented a brief, which is going to be given to all the committee members, so I don't mind devoting the time to questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

It's totally in your hands.

[David Cohen]

Well, I've just given an entire brief to the finance committee, so I'm perfectly satisfied to take questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chairman, there's an option to read this document into the record, if you like.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Oh yes; he can if he wishes.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Not necessarily him; it could be someone else.