Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Aziz Khaki]

You are talking on behalf of the minister herself?

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

Absolutely, and in fact when the instruction issues, and that will happen after some time in consultation, those who apply the instructions must apply them in an objective way that meets the charter and all of its requirements. So there are some built-in provisions that safeguard some of the issues you raise.

Finally, the legislation itself indicates that these measures or instructions must support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada, so the government establishes some goals in its policy consideration. They have to decide, in weighing all of the issues, the policy they want and then it must be applied in accordance with Bill C-50. I think that what we find is clear: immigrant or newcomer intake is in the amount of 235,000 to 265,000, but the numbers that apply are far greater than that.

So what we have if we do nothing is a system that continues to grow, as we have now, whereas the honourable member said that people start to die in the process before their application gets received. And if you want to stay competitive with other countries, something needs to happen. Bill C-50 indicates that there can be establishing of categories and selection within the category, and the indication has been, within the economic class, to ensure that those who are needed with respect to the economy are those who will be processed, and processed on a quick basis without interfering with refugees or the family class itself.

So it's important to appreciate the context within which Bill C-50 arises. It's in the context of a system that's burgeoning with a backlog that's not moving anywhere. And it's fair to say we have the tools now, and why have they not been used? Why has it taken a decade without any action? Because nobody grabbed the bull by the horns to wrestle the problem down.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's seven and a half minutes.

Okay, I'll give you 30 seconds to wrap up, and then I'm going to Mr. Bevilacqua and Madam Grewal.

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

All right, in fairness—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I think we'll have a response from Mr. Szeto.

[Eric Szeto]

Our side can understand that Bill C-50 is retroactive as of February 27...applies only to the new applicants. All applicants, under Bill C-50, will not be affected. So actually Bill C-50 is not addressing the backlog at all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We'll have a couple of brief ones from Mr. Bevilacqua and Madam Grewal. That will put everyone who wanted to have a word or two on the list, and I think we can possibly deal with our next group in probably 50 minutes, because we only have two.

Go ahead.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for your presentations and for the contribution you've made to the study of Bill C-50.

I do want to get a sense from you. When you look at this bill, here is a government that wants to essentially speed this bill through the entire parliamentary process. I could understand that if it were a brilliant idea. I could understand that if this was such a great thing that we would have to rally the country just to make it happen because it's just the idea that will fix the immigration system.

The reality is that after listening to so many presentations, one thing is certain. This is by far a lousy idea. It hasn't really addressed anything they originally stated that it would when you're talking about the backlog.

When you look at this bill as a demonstration of how to be undemocratic, it's certainly one of the best I've seen in 20 years here. There's been no real consultation with people. The concentration of power in the minister's hands has been criticized extensively. You have a misinformation campaign. You have advertisements being purchased before the bill actually even becomes law. And it doesn't address the original intent of the backlog of 925,000.

Then there are the inconsistencies of values, and this is what really bothers me. The Conservative government wants us to believe that it's all about skilled labour, it's about understanding the economy, and it's about structuring the economy and addressing the human resources consequences of not acting on this issue. When it comes to the economy, the credibility is obvious, right? These are the same people who left us with a $42-billion deficit, so it's very hard for me to believe that they actually have the answers to what the economy needs.

Having said that, what would be your recommendation to the minister? Would it be simply to go back to the drawing board, to open up the process, to scrap this bill and start anew? What is it that you would like to see from your government?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Anyone?

[Aziz Khaki]

We'd like to see more consultation. Even in the time of the Brian Mulroney government and afterwards, there were two to three consultations nationally and provincially. There were people in the field, dealing with the issues of the day, the pain and suffering of people who had to go to the bureaucracy and the political class. There used to be a lot of meetings. People used to contribute, and there was a lot of acceptance of what was being said.

With Bill C-50, whatever you say, nothing has been discussed. It has been discussed with only a selected few. I don't want to go more into details.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Ms. Grewal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First of all, let me welcome all of you. You're from my home province of B.C., and I think I'm the only MP from B.C. It's nice to see you, Mr. Chan.

I think all of us are familiar with the system. We know that the immigration system has been broken for many years. What with the wait times and backlogs, things are out of control and change is essential. We agree with this. The potential immigrants, especially from India and China, are waiting too many years for verdicts on their applications. The changes we are proposing to the immigration legislation will tackle the 900,000-plus backlog. The changes will help to ensure that people with badly needed skills will gain quick admittance to Canada.

In your submission, you expressed a concern over potential discrimination. Ministerial instructions must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against discrimination based on race, ethnicity, colour, religion, sex, or whatever. The instructions must be published in the Canada Gazette and reported in the immigration department's annual report to Parliament. Considering all these facts, do you think any minister would publicly issue a discriminatory instruction? Do the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act address your concerns?

[Tung Chan]

As far as charter protection and public transparency in policy goes, we have no concern. Our concern lies in the execution of those instructions. That's why we have to put in a point system. It's not the policy or the instruction itself. But anytime you give discretionary power to the civil servants, we have to have a way to monitor how those discretionary powers are used. That's why in our submission we say that there needs to be clear, transparent, and accurate reporting of when and how these powers are used. If these powers are incorrectly used, then the political masters can make sure it doesn't happen again.

The point system is put in for that purpose. It's not quite working. We heard from Madam Chow that maybe we should change it a bit to include the people who have relatives here, to give them more points. People with relatives here, by and large, have a better chance of integrating economically, socially, and culturally. So perhaps that's the way to proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much.

As you can see, we ran out of time. We managed to get in every individual who wanted to have a word or two. We try to do that in fairness, to try to get everyone on.

We're going to do a report, and I hope our report will be ready by Thursday. We're certainly pushing for it. Your submissions were very valuable to the preparation of the report by the analysts.

Thank you very much.

We will call to the table the Canadian Labour Congress. I would invite you to come to the table, Mr. Hassan Yussuff, secretary-treasurer; and Mr. Karl Flecker, national director, anti-racism and human rights department.

We have approximately 50 minutes. I invite you to take your seats, and we will try to get back on schedule.

Thank you, Mr. Yussuff and Mr. Flecker, for coming to our meeting this morning. You have appeared before our committee before and know what the drill is.

I'll go to you, Mr. Yussuff, secretary-treasurer, for an opening statement. You have approximately five minutes or so, and then we'll go to questions.

[Hassan Yussuff, Secretary-Treasurer, Canadian Labour Congress]

We will try to be as brief as we can, recognizing the time constraints of the committee this morning.

Let me thank the committee for allowing us to present before you on behalf of the 3.2 million members of the Canadian Labour Congress, essentially coast to coast. But more important, we will submit a comprehensive brief to the committee. I'm sorry we didn't get it done on time, given the shortness of the request to present before the committee.

I will outline some of the key points we want to make, and hopefully that will generate some questions from the committee members.

The government argues that the proposed changes are designed to make our immigration system more flexible and responsive to Canada's labour market needs. However, the process the government is using to advance their planned changes and proposed amendments represents a significant change in Canada's immigration system. It raises serious concern about the fairness, transparency, and public accountability.

Immigration reform must not simply be about addressing labour market needs. Immigration is fundamentally about the welcoming, supporting, benefiting, and integrating of newcomers into Canada. Immigrants are more than a component of an economic agenda. Immigration reform requires thoughtful policy attention and building an inclusive, vibrant, and diverse society.

Significant changes in Canada's demographic profile are well under way. We have an aging population and a declining fertility rate. The country is largely dependent on immigrants for both population and labour market growth. Unfortunately our immigration system is also overloaded with applicants on the waiting list, and many have been waiting for years.

There are serious challenges that require broad public engagement and thoughtful and effective policy solutions. Embedding major immigration reform inside a budget bill is playing electoral politics with people's futures and is both a wrong-headed and unsound approach to transparency and policy development. We urge the committee to sever the immigration amendments from Bill C-50 and undertake a set of comprehensive national public hearings.

Let me outline some very quick points.

We think embedding the reform in the budget bill is wrong.

There has been a failure to conduct meaningful and inclusive consultations prior to the development of the initiative.

Arbitrary powers granted to the minister fail the transparency and accountability test this government has promised.

New process is not the best way to deal with the backlog. The process of simply asking applicants who have been in the queue for years if they still wish to have their application processed demonstrates that other ways exist to cut down the line. Competing systems are unlikely to lead to a streamlined process.

The inappropriate use of ads to sell the initiative after the fact and before the amendments become law is problematic.

To view immigrants as an economic unit and skew the role of employers to determining citizenship is wrong-headed.

Unclear process steps exist in how labour market needs or priority occupations will be determined and how many assessment and selection processes will operate. We're likely to see a rise in applicants in the temporary foreign worker category or CIC numbers. It is not a balanced immigration system.

And last but not least, the funding allocation for competing systems may not be adequate.

I'd like to make one last point here, and this is a fundamentally important point for us. Immigration is about building more than just the well-being of employers' interests. Immigration policy is fundamentally about building our communities, workplaces, and society in a thoughtful, inclusive, accountable, and democratic manner. 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 for the broader Canadian interests. This includes the problematic increase in reliance on temporary foreign workers. Canada needs to consider immigrants as full participants in society, not simply as temporary or disposable units to fill current available jobs.

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Flecker, did you have anything to add, or will we just go to questions now? Okay.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to thank the Canadian Labour Congress for their presentation and for their contribution to Bill C-50.

I was trying to find something you like about this bill, and I think in many ways you reflect the opinions we have heard. The concern I have is that we really don't know where to start. We really haven't heard one presentation that has been very supportive, or supportive at all, of the government initiative.

Outside of the parliamentary secretary, the members of the Conservative Party, and the minister herself, I wonder if there are people out there who actually support this bill. After having talked to a lot of people across the country--I've spoken to many--I've come to the conclusion that this bill really doesn't have any legs to stand on as a response to the challenges we face in immigration.

It is also of major concern that the consultation process-before and after--has not been adequate. The fact that they're trying to push this through in a budget bill is of concern from a democratic point of view and a parliamentary process point of view. Above and beyond the fact that this bill does not address its original intent, which was to deal with the backlog, it is a bad example to give Canadians as to how our democracy works. That's the great damage of this bill. It goes above and beyond the issue of immigration.

So I'd like to give you this opportunity. What kind of advice do you have for the minister? If she were here--and Mr. Komarnicki can actually report to her--what would you tell her?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I would simply advise the government and the minister to take the changes she wants to consider on immigration and put them in a process that's transparent, and to have meaningful consultation across the country.

Canadians as a whole, regardless of what part of the country they're from, and especially those families and individuals who have been waiting in the queue for quite some time to have their application dealt with to get their families here, are very frustrated. I think that's a real issue.

If you're going to advance changes to the immigration system, recognizing that we, as a country, are also competing for immigrants from around the world, we need to be very thoughtful about how we go about that. No immigration policy should simply be driven by employers' demands. It should be driven by the desire of the country as to what kinds of individuals we want to bring to our country and how we are going to integrate them in building this country. That's fundamentally what the immigration policy should be about.

I think this policy shift is trying to accomplish how quickly we can respond to the employers' demands. And employers' demands, as you know, change with the speed of lightning. Today it's a need for widget makers, and tomorrow it's a need for windmill makers. We can't build a country that way if we adopt that approach to immigration.

I would simply argue that the minister should seriously heed the concerns raised by others who have come before the committee to withdraw these amendments in the budget bill and put them out separately for us to have meaningful discussion.

We, as a congress, represent three million members. A large percentage of our members are immigrants. Many of them have helped build this country and want to continue to do that. We want to help shape the policy of the country. But it should not be skewed in the direction for employers to determine, and this is exactly what this policy does.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

So scrap that portion of the bill is what you're saying.

Is there any other advice for the minister? You've tackled the issue of transparency. You've tackled the issue of the waiting list and how it doesn't address that. You gave us a long list earlier on. You're accurate on all those points, because they are simply the truth.

The minister and the government have not respected parliamentary tradition when it comes to the issue of consultation. And really, that lack of respect has been damaging to the government because they're not getting buy-in by anybody. We've spent a few days now listening to witnesses, and I can't recall one person who actually said this is a perfect bill.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Well, as a democracy, I also think that the government spending, which has been reported in the media as $1 million on an advertisement campaign for a proposed amendment that is yet to be approved by Parliament and essentially gives the public no meaningful input as to how they can respond to the proposed amendments and changes that the government is contemplating.... I mean, this committee has not yet reported. I don't know what the findings of this committee will be at the end of the day. But to actually have a campaign where you're advertising the changes, with the public not having any meaningful way to participate in that process, I think raises serious concern about the government desire to have a transparent and engaging process.

From our perspective, the arbitrary powers granted to the minister under this bill are quite far-reaching. This essentially leaves the minister in control to determine the priorities of this country. I don't think any minister should have that determination. I think the Parliament of this country should have that determination.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have ten seconds, so I might as well go to Mr. Carrier.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

You want to scrap the bill, essentially.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Messrs. Yussuff and Flecker. I'm pleased to hear your comments. Once again, as my colleague mentioned, virtually no speakers support this bill except one. You said we should not devote too much effort to filling jobs and meeting employers' requests. That's not what the bill is about. You say it leaves discretionary power with the minister.

What leads you to believe that the minister will give this kind of immigration a priority? I agree with you that building a country is more than a matter of meeting labour needs. We need a diversified society that has a number of qualifications in various fields. These are people who have the ability to integrate and who constitute a positive contribution to our population. We aren't a placement agency for employers. What leads you to believe we're headed toward that?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Both my colleague and I will respond.

I have one quick point. There is no question that a large part of these changes are to deal with the so-called--I would characterize it--skill shortages in the country. The amendments are essentially to allow the minister to determine the categories of immigrants that will be let in to meet the skills shortages that employers continue to argue exist in the country. That shifts the burden so that essentially the employer is going to determine who comes into Canada. This is our analysis of the amendments that the minister must propose in the legislation.

Karl, you may want to answer.