:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honourable members.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill on budget implementation, which contains our government's proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
[English]
As I said to our colleagues at the finance committee, I'm proud to serve as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a government that recognizes that immigration is as important to Canada's future as it has been to our past. Our country was built on immigration, and our future prosperity and success as a country largely depends on it.
To put things in context, by 2012, all of Canada's net labour force growth will have to come from immigration, but at this time there are over 900,000 people in the queue waiting to immigrate to Canada. Many of them have to wait up to six years before their application gets looked at, let alone processed. The stark reality is that if we do nothing to address the backlog by 2012, applicants will face a 10-year wait time to have their applications processed. The lineup of people waiting to get into Canada could reach upwards of 1.5 million people.
[Translation]
Contrary to the previous government, we do not believe the status quo is acceptable or sustainable.
[English]
If we do nothing to address this problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones, and we risk losing the people our country needs to other countries, which are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that immigrants bring.
The current immigration system is broken and desperately needs repair. The status quo on immigration is simply unacceptable. The current system is unfair to our country and it's unfair to those waiting to come here. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration, a vision that involves a new and responsive immigration system, one that would allow us to continue welcoming more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need to succeed to build a better life for themselves and for their families. However, to realize this vision, changes must be made.
[Translation]
In our immigration system today, anyone can apply. That is a good thing, and we will not change that. It reflects the fundamental commitment to fairness that all Canadians share. However, the current system leaves us little flexibility in terms of what we do with those applications.
[English]
By law, we have to process every single completed immigration application to a decision, even if a person has moved on to another country or is simply no longer interested in coming here. Our obligation to process every single application to a decision remains, regardless of how many people apply or how many were able to accept.
Furthermore, we are generally limited to processing applications in the order that we receive them. So quite simply, the current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight.
In the current context, Mr. Chair, we must realize that other countries are not sitting idly by. The fact is that we face serious international competition in attracting the people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity.
[Translation]
Put simply, inaction on the backlog will result in the people we need going elsewhere as wait times to come to Canada continue to increase.
[English]
In Australia and New Zealand, where they have the kind of flexibility we seek, applicants get final decisions in as little as six months, not six years. It's important to note that when compared with the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand, Canada is the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code, or prioritize skilled worker applications.
[Translation]
So compared to other countries, Canada's system is just not flexible enough.
[English]
Urgent action is required so that we can welcome more immigrants and their families faster while ensuring that the workers we need get here sooner. To accomplish this objective, Mr. Chair, our government has proposed a three-pronged approach.
Number one, we have committed to investing more resources—$109 million over five years. But more money isn't enough. We also have to do things smarter, better, and faster.
So we'll make administrative changes as well, such as centralizing our data entry to free up resources in our overseas missions for more processing. We'll also code applications in the backlog by occupation so that we can refer applications of interest to the provinces and the territories for processing under the provincial nominee programs.
As part of our administrative changes, we'll also send in dedicated teams to our overseas missions to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest, and we'll transfer resources from busy to less busy missions. For example, in October, when we lifted visa restrictions on the Czech Republic and Latvia, we transferred resources to the Philippines to help with the backlogs there.
[Translation]
But increasing funding and improving administrative efficiencies is not enough. Systemic change is needed in order to fix the system. That is why we have introduced legislative changes to give us the flexibility and authority to both manage the backlog and set priorities that would match Canada's needs.
[English]
Our proposed legislation will allow the minister to identify categories of occupations—not individuals—for processing on a priority basis; that is, the proposed legislation will allow for the processing of applications based on our country's needs, not on one's individual place in the line. To make sure that we get it right, there are several checks and balances on the minister. First of all, the ministerial instructions will have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our immigration system will continue to be universal and non-discriminatory.
The instructions will also complement the objectives of IRPA, that is, to support Canada's economy and competitiveness, reunite families, and protect refugees. These instructions will also require broad input.
Prior to issuing the instructions, the government will consult with the provinces and territories and industry and government departments to shape the approach. In consulting with the provinces, we will seek assurance that when they say they need immigrants with certain skills, those immigrants can actually get their credentials recognized so they can work.
Finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, ensuring government-wide accountability for the decisions taken. And to be completely transparent, the instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and will be reported in CIC's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.
Mr. Chair, let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals. First, contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applications we accept; Canada remains open to immigrants and anyone can still apply. However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications that are not processed in a given year could be held for future consideration or be returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee—and they would be welcome to reapply.
The result will be that the backlog will stop growing and will actually start to come down. The flexibility in managing the backlog will accomplish three things: it will help reduce the backlog; it will ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed; and it will allow our country to continue to grow and prosper.
[Translation]
That is what these proposed amendments would do, Mr. Chairman. However, I should also clarify what the proposed changes would not do.
There are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the Minister.
[English]
For example, there's a myth out there that the minister would be arbitrarily able to cherry-pick applicants in the queue and override immigration officers' decisions on individual cases. This is simply not the case, as the minister is limited to designating priority categories, not applicants; nor will the minister have the authority to select an application for processing or reject an application that has been processed and accepted.
With respect to concerns expressed about the impact of the legislation on family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate cases, any instruction from the minister will have to respect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which include supporting Canada's economy and competitiveness, supporting family reunification, and upholding our humanitarian requirements.
To be clear, the ministerial instructions will not apply to refugees, protected persons, or humanitarian and compassionate applications made from within Canada. We would also continue to establish clear target ranges for numbers of immigrants that we intend to accept in each category. In the case of family class applications, this means Canada plans to accept approximately 70,000 applicants in 2008.
[Translation]
The instructions must also respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the Provincial Nominee Program and the Canada-Quebec Accord.
I know that time is running out, Mr. Chairman and I am looking forward to your questions.
[English]
In conclusion, let me just say that our proposed changes to the immigration system are ultimately about people. It's about a vision for our country to make sure that people who have gone through so much to get here succeed at building a better life for themselves and for their family. It's about helping newcomers get the jobs they need to succeed, because their success is our success. And it's about ensuring the future growth and prosperity of immigrants and their families while building a better Canada. These proposals would achieve that vision and would help immigrants continue to contribute to the future of Canada.
I'd like to thank this committee for the fine work you did on , in reviewing that, concerning the “lost Canadians”, and also on the unanimous report you submitted on which that bill was based. I was very pleased and proud of you and your efforts when that bill received royal assent recently.
[Translation]
Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee.
I am now prepared to take questions.
[English]
Thank you.
:
Minister, I noticed that actual spending in 2006 on the immigration program is $244.8 million, and in the main estimates in 2008, the immigration program spending is $164.86 million. That's a 32% drop.
Yet for the advertising program, $2.4 million has been put into the supplementary estimates. That's a lot of money for the advertising program. I think $1.1 million has already been spent on defending a bill that the House of Commons hasn't even passed...but that's neither here nor there.
I have listened carefully to all your interviews. You have said you do not want to process dead people, which we totally agree with. One way to not process dead people is to send a letter to all 925,000 people in the backlog and say, “If you don't respond in 60 days, obviously you don't want us to process your application any more.” Maybe a few of them are already dead; I don't know. But that's an easy way to deal with it. Why not do it that way?
Secondly, you have often said you want to get the doctors in, because we need doctors. I've heard that many times. I then looked up the temporary foreign workers program. This information comes from the employers. It specifies the kind of skilled labour they want. I have looked at the kinds of skills employers say they need most in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In Alberta, it's code number 6242. It's not doctors; it's actually cooks. In 2007, the employers from Alberta have requested 3,343 cooks. Nowhere on this list is doctors.
I then looked at British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Some are asking for maybe 200 doctors, but certainly chefs and cooks are at the top of the list.
So are we doing all of this in , part 6, in order to bring more cooks into Canada, or maybe kitchen helpers? I see that Alberta has requested 6,976 food-counter attendants and kitchen helpers. Next on the list are babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers—5,000 of them. There is a request for 4,000 light-duty cleaners.
Are these the people you're going to put at the front of the list—they're obviously in demand—instead of some other folks? I'm just looking at the documentation in front of me. They are obviously the people we need.
Am I correct in that interpretation?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, welcome.
I want to deal with some misconceptions. I've been listening to you and the parliamentary secretary long enough. There are sound bites, talking points, that are coming through. Yes, it has to be charter-compliant. Minister, as I told the parliamentary secretary, a security certificate was not compliant with the charter for 25 years and it was in place. So saying it's charter-compliant might be a wish, something that gets dealt with down the road.
There's another issue I'm bothered about. Right now we have an open, transparent system, the point system, the objectivity of which was established in 1967. It has been copied by Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. The United States Senate started a major study on it a year ago. The problem, from my perspective, hasn't been the openness or transparency of the system—those are good things. The problem has been the way we allocate points. It wasn't the politicians or the committee who made up the point system back in 2002; it was the bureaucrats.
When you compare our point system to Australia's and New Zealand's, it doesn't make any sense. We give 10 points for the maximum age, for someone who's 49 years old, whereas both New Zealand and Australia cut them off at a younger age. If we're going to get people over here, we need to get them over here early.
I think we could have had a fix on it if we had just done that. I said it was the bureaucrats who drove the point system in 2002. In Dragan v. Canada, the court issued an order of mandamus. The court makes it clear that a big problem has been that the bureaucrats misinformed this committee and the Governor in Council. But guess what? They got off scot-free—none of them ever had to deal with it.
I have in my hand a memorandum to the minister. It's been floating around for a long time. It makes it clear that the problem has always been that the bureaucracy has artificially been constraining resources. That's the only control they had over processing. So there's no issue. If we wanted to get people in quickly, we could. They don't have to wait six years. We can get a temporary foreign worker in for 35 days or a couple of months. They can get them in, no problem.
Minister, you're the first minister in this decade who has missed her numbers, meaning the forecast. In this last session, instead of coming in with a 240,000 to 265,000 range, you're going to be coming in with less than 237,000. Minister, under your watch, we have created a crisis on the Immigration and Refugee Board. We went from a backlog of 18,000 to something like 45,000, and we're going to be over 60,000 by year's end.
I have a real concern about who's in charge over there, and I have a real concern about the underhanded way this whole process is being snuck through Parliament, being put in legislation. You're accommodating the bureaucrats' dream—the bureaucrats who have spent so much time misinforming members of Parliament and the Governor in Council, and who are responsible for a big part of the mess we are in.
:
That's a novel approach, but it's welcome.
I guess the question I have to begin with is—and I don't ask this in a facetious way, but a sincere way—how are things going with this bill? You've travelled extensively across the country. You have paid attention to the hearings that are going on in the parliamentary committee. Quite frankly, I know of all your efforts you've made to communicate with Canadians, including with editorial boards. You've done a lot of work on this.
The message that I get, and that we collectively get from people who appear in front of us as witnesses, is not that positive. I mean this in a non-partisan way: there are major, major concerns about the issue of the powers the minister will have. There are major concerns about not just the substance but the way this whole project actually rolled out: introducing it in the budget bill, the lack of consultation, and things being pre-imposed. Right? But those concerns could easily have been erased.
I was struck by something the minister said. She said she wanted to thank the committee for the great work it had done on lost Canadians. It would have been simpler for everybody, and we would probably have achieved a better product, had we been given the same opportunity on this particular file—
An hon. member: That's true.
Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: —because at the end of the day, whether you're sitting on this side or on the other side, the bottom line for us is how to improve the quality of life for people who want to come to Canada and who are in Canada. That's what drives us; that's why we're in public life.
So when things like this happen, I personally feel cheated, in the sense that we were not given the opportunity to contribute as much as we could have. I know the hard work the bureaucracy does on these files, but I just think there would have been a better way to deal with this issue, had the form and the process been a little bit more open, more transparent, and more accountable, and had we, as parliamentarians, been included more.
Quite frankly, we are now left with very little choice, Mr. Chairman, but to say that the vast majority of people who appeared in front of us didn't agree with the bill.
I think we could have done a much better job for the minister had she given us the opportunity to study the issue in depth and to make proposals.
I'd like you to comment on that.
:
Mr. Chairman, let me start with the second part of Mr. Bevilacqua's question.
You're not only an MP, you have an “honourable” before your name, so you will know that it's not appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy.
I think there is a link between their Advantage Canada commitments in the last budget, two budgets ago, and there's an economic component to this, but I simply have to decline comment on that. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy. I think the minister has commented on a couple of occasions, and she has explained it, I think, fairly well.
On the first part of your question, I think my colleagues and I, and the minister, as you say, have gone across the country and have talked to a lot of people. As I think is the case with any kind of legislation like this, the amendments are technical in nature and the bill itself is quite complex. I think there is a mixed reaction. I don't think everybody is in favour, and I certainly don't think everybody is against it.
My sense, as we went across the country, is that as people talked about it and as they came to understand it better, they came to understand the objectives of the government and were broadly supportive.
That's not true across the board. I certainly was told on a couple of occasions that they thought it was the worst idea since the black plague, but I was also told by some stakeholders that it was a very good idea and that it was high time the government did something.
So in terms of the people I spoke to or my colleagues spoke to, I think on balance we would come out with a view that the response was generally positive.
The list the minister was drawing from a few minutes ago I think contained 48 ethnic groups who said they were supportive. So it's not all negative.
Mr. Fadden, when I started out I was a bureaucrat, and I know the majority of the people in the bureaucracy are fine people. I'm going to try not to be aggressive and confrontational, but I'm terribly frustrated with some of the attitudes I see when we, as members of Parliament, deal with the bureaucracy. The attitude is sometimes, at the very best, I guess, pejorative.
I asked Mr. Linklater the other day about racism within the department. I don't have a problem with bureaucrats making decisions--I think you probably have much more experience than we do--in consultation with parliamentarians, as long as you're going in the direction the government wants you to go. However, I think you know that I have dealt with racist attitudes with the east Indian desk. I brought it up in committee when Joe Volpe was the minister, and the then-deputy minister practically called me a liar.
Now we have a lawyer in Hamilton...and I'm sure you're aware of the article about someone who's obviously using government computers and has been on a chat line and made these kinds of comments.
What does the department do to be vigilant about racist attitudes? That's the only thing that really frightens me in all of this. That's the thing that frightens me the most.
I think it's very unfortunate. Yes, we all have our bad days, and I understand that people who work in the bureaucracy have their bad days as well, but when I call, I can't even get hold of a government person in New Delhi to discuss the circumstances in certain cases.
Where is my avenue, as a member of Parliament, to deal with cases where I truly believe there has been a mistake made when I have no person to talk to, I have a button to press? Can you assure me and tell me what we are doing to make sure that these ugly attitudes...? I don't want to be apologizing--I don't want my grandchildren to have to apologize in 70 years--for what we allow to happen here. I don't say this to be confrontational. It is a sincere concern of mine.
:
I'd be happy to go first.
I will have copies for members.
[Translation]
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I am happy to make a short opening statement.
My name is Joan Atkinson and I am the Visiting Assistant Deputy Minister at the Canada Public Service Agency.
[English]
It's a bit of a strange title: the fact that I'm a visiting ADM doesn't mean that I just visit and have tea, but I actually do work there. In my capacity as the visiting ADM of the Canada Public Service Agency, I'm responsible for talent management of the ADM community. I provide advice to deputy heads, to ADMs, and to the Clerk of the Privy Council on human resource measures as they relate to ADMs.
I was deployed to this position in June 2006. Prior to joining the Canada Public Service Agency, I was the assistant secretary to the cabinet on social development policy from September 2004 to June 2006. Prior to that, I was the ADM for socio-economic policy and programs at Indian and Northern Affairs from January 2003 to September 2004. And prior to that, I worked for almost 24 years in the immigration program in Canada and overseas, first as a visa officer and then in various positions in national headquarters and, starting in 1997, as the director general of the selection branch until June 2000, when I was appointed the ADM of policy and program development at Citizenship and Immigration.
While I'm pleased to appear before the committee, with whom I've worked closely in my public service career in the past, I feel that I do need to explain the limitations of my ability tonight to assist in your deliberations on part 6 of Bill , given my responsibilities as a public servant. While I will always remain interested in immigration and citizenship, given that I left CIC almost six years ago, I simply don't possess any substantive knowledge of this bill and really can't provide you with any expertise or technical information on the bill, since I really don't know it.
As you know, as a public servant, my duties are to provide advice to the government in areas of my competence and responsibilities, and to ensure that once policy decisions are made, the policies are administered appropriately. It's also my responsibility to provide parliamentarians with factual information, technical details, explanations, and rationales for proposed legislation and other policies of the government. It's not my role to engage in a debate or a discussion on the merits of a particular policy or approach.
Given that I haven't worked in any capacity at CIC for several years, I'm afraid I really don't have the competence to be able to answer factual questions about part 6 of Bill .
[Translation]
I have taken your invitation to appear before you seriously and that is why I am here. However, I trust you will appreciate the limitations imposed on my ability to respond to questions concerning the matter before you today, given my responsibilities as a public servant.
[English]
But I would be happy to be able to respond to other questions in any way I can be helpful to the committee.
Merci.
I guess the objective way of looking at people coming in as immigrants to Canada began in 1967, and it ended up being copied by Australia, New Zealand, England. They're looking at it in Europe. I think they are doing it under the OECD. It's being done by the United States. They are looking at our objective system. That is the good thing about the point system--it's very transparent; people can see it.
We went off the rails. Australia and New Zealand went in another direction. They actually worked with the real world. If you needed a welder, they would be able to be brought in as welders. You would give points for a needed occupation, which we used to do as well. It's a model of building a country through immigration, versus having temporary foreign workers whom, when the economy goes bad, we can get rid of. One thing that is obvious in Canada is that we will always need people to do the jobs that have to be done at the lower end of the skill range.
The chair and I were in Halifax and we walked by a pub—we didn't go in. But this was in Halifax, and they were looking for a cook, a cook's helper, a server, a server's helper, and a dishwasher. Those jobs need to get done. It seems to make more sense to bring immigrants in to fill those jobs, versus bringing in temporary foreign workers. I'll tell you why.
When you take in temporary foreign workers.... Take a look at what's happening in Fort McMurray. A lot of single men are working in Fort McMurray. There's a high incidence of alcohol and drug abuse. This is all over the tar sands, where people are forced to live without their families, particularly the temporary foreign workers who don't have the capacity to fly back to Newfoundland or the Maritimes every couple of months. But that's the reality of what they're living in, and we know that's not very good.
So we want people who will come over and welcome the opportunity to work at some of those jobs that in many cases Canadians don't want to do. Of course, this means you can't get rid of them if the economy turns bad. But the fact is we will always need people working in that part of the economy.
If you look around the table.... Look at the parliamentary secretary. We brought in the men in the sheepskin coats because we had to have some job done that nobody else was going to do or had the capacity to do, and there they came.
I look at Maurizio Bevilacqua. When I went to work in construction, I worked with a lot of Italians and Portuguese, and guess what? Many of them didn't speak the language all that well, but they all were able to work, and they all worked hard and built a life for themselves.
I can look at Ms. Grewal. That's how this country was built.
So I think we have to respect that the point system has to reflect what we need. I think that's where we went off the rails, and I think that's where the Australians and New Zealanders have done better than we have.
Let's keep the openness and transparency of the point system, but make it responsive enough so that it will actually get the people we need into the country. That's where it went so terribly wrong.
I'm still at a loss, because we on the committee knew that this was going down the wrong path. We knew this was the wrong path to go down.
Hindsight is 20/20. I think I'd prefer to take my time and look at the future. I think we all can agree where we are right now in Canada and what's best for Canada right now.
Where we are right now is that we have a ticking time bomb ready to explode, with the aging baby boomers ready to retire in the next 10 or 15 years. Close to one-third of our population is not going to be in the labour force in the next 10 or 15 years. We know that today.
We also know today that the Canadians we have right now aren't giving birth in high enough numbers to keep the population stable. So the only way our population can stay at the level it is today is through immigration, and if we want to go beyond that, if we want to grow our communities and grow our society, then we're going to have to increase the level of immigration even that much further.
So our choices, then, involve how we go about doing that, what is the most fair, open, transparent, and objective way of doing that. I think the point system satisfies that model. The new bill, on which I know you can't comment, goes in the complete opposite direction and puts the power into the hands of the minister to pick and choose exactly who's going to come into Canada. The point system has its problems. It's not perfect, but it's far superior to putting all the power into the hands of the minister to decide the fate and the future of Canada.
With that in mind, we have the other question we've got to answer. What type of Canada do we want? Do we want a Canada filled with temporary foreign workers, which is the way the Conservative Party and this minister are going, and with all due respect one of the ways you had suggested? Do we want temporary foreign workers or a Canada filled with full-time Canadian families? I think the fabric and the quality of life of Canada are enhanced immensely by going down the path of having families here.
You know, we can bring a foreign worker in to work at Fort McMurray or up at Whistler in one of the resorts for the 2010 Olympics, but that foreign worker, whoever he or she is, is alone. His or her family is back in some other country. I'm sure the productivity level, the satisfaction level, just the overall quality of life for the community as well as that individual, would be greatly enhanced if that person could bring his family here. Canada is in the unique position where we can choose the full-time Canadian immigrant over the temporary foreign worker.
We just had a discussion with the minister. There are 925,000 people on the waiting list. I could understand if we were a country like Norway, which has nobody on the waiting list, and the only way we could get people in were as temporary foreign workers. But we aren't. The minister has 900,000 potential full-time Canadians who want to come into Canada, who want to work. That should be the avenue we go to first, and I'm hopeful this committee will continue doing its good work and take a look at the point system, to reform the point system to allow the department to operate in such a way as to open up Canada's doors and let more Canadians in.
Is there a way we can modify the point system to allow more Canadians into Canada faster?