CIMM Committee Report

PC-DR COALITION DISSENTING REPORT
INKY MARK, PC-DR COALITION
CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION CRITIC

The PC-DR Coalition agrees in principle with many of the recommendations found in this report. The main disagreement is on the issue of retroactivity, which is supported by both the Liberal and Canadian Alliance Parties. The Standing Committee heard the same concerns expressed at the new regulation hearings as was heard during the C-11 public hearings. The new Bill certainly did not reflect the public sentiment. Much work has gone into drafting this report on the new regulations. The question is, will the government implement these recommendation or will this report become a dust collector like many of the former reports, such as "Securing our Borders", of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration?

Bill C-11, which was to have been the Liberal government’s magic bullet for all the immigration ills of this country is proving to be a dud. Famous quotes such as "keep the front door open while closing the back door" were said obviously without much forethought, for if the government took a reality check, they would find that not only is the front door unscreened, but the back door is off it’s hinges. Does the government need to be reminded of both internal and external thefts of visa and IMM 1000 documents along with Ministerial permits? One would think that after September 11, 2001, people from countries like Saudi Arabia would be required to have a visitor visa to enter Canada, even on a temporary basis. The number of new regulations makes C-11, which was supposed to have been framework legislation, look very insignificant. It almost appears that the department has hijacked the Bill in its entirety. This is one weakness of framework legislation. Many of these new regulations should have been written into Bill C-11.

There is a huge disconnect between what Liberals say and what they do. They want to be known as the Party which support immigrants. We know that they want immigrant votes. The new regulations do not reflect the intent of the C-11 legislation. The problem is that Liberals lump everything together. They do not seem able to separate legitimate immigration issues from security issues. The Auditor General has been echoing these concerns over the last decade and they a re still un-addressed by this government. There are real people out there who have been waiting for up to four years to legally enter this country. The reality is that the department drafts regulations to suit it’s own administrative purposes. Let us not forget that the role of the politician, unlike the bureaucrat, should be looking at these regulations from a human perspective.

Here are some of the commentary regarding these new regulations to Bill C-11: these regulations are volume control by the department; these regulations are a method for getting rid of the backlog which is an estimated 225,000; these regulations do not reflect Canadian values; these regulations hijack Parliament as many of these regulations should be in legislation; these regulations are the first steps toward a quota system; C-11 and the regulations demonstrate a system that is fundamentally flawed; the current new regulations illustrate conclusively why Parliament needs to re-examine the merits of the framework legislation of Bill C-11.

There were many concerns expressed by the public during the hearings on the new regulations. The principle concerns were on the issues of retroactivity and the new Skilled Workers’ Grid. Space is limited so I can only deal with retroactivity. On behalf of the PC-DR Coalition, I will say again, we are against the principle of retroactivity. The Liberals and the Canadian Alliance support retroactivity. They support an end date. We do not support an end date. We believe that all applicants who have applied before the implementation date of both the Act and the regulations should be processed under the old system. We do not believe the rules should be changed in midstream. This is plain unjust and unfair. This is not the Canadian way. Retroactivity is repugnant and unprecedented in legislation.

To illustrate how important this issue of retroactivity is, I will list the comments expressed before the Standing Committee:

Maytree Foundation — Interim measures to ensure fair process and service to applicants should be implemented and applicants whose applications are rejected because of changes in the regulations receive refunds; Canadians for Fair and Just Immigration Policy — Retroactivity should not be applied under any circumstances. Even a refund of the fees is totally unacceptable; Customs & Immigration Union — Running parallel systems (old and new) can be done with this kind of volume — "no problem at all"; AQAADI, UCC and NOIVMWC — Applications should be assessed using the criteria in place at the time the application was submitted. Failure to respect the "lock-in" date is a betrayal of legitimate expectations; CBA — Retroactivity will harm Canada’s reputation in the eyes of potential immigrants. The traditional practice of locking in eligibility criteria at the time of application should continue; Association of Immigration Counsel of Canada — Retroactivity will seriously undermine Canada’s reputation. It is an ill-conceived policy that is unfair, unjust and discriminatory; Mendel Green – Serious court challenges will result from retroactivity. Take care of the backlog with additional resources; Canadian Immigration Policy Council — We cannot accept the retroactive failure of applicants simply because there are too many in the queue; Canadian Manufacturers & Exporters — If we are to be able to compete for skilled workers, Canada cannot create a system that has no foundation on predictability. This will affect temporary workers as well. Why would an individual recruited to Canada on a temporary work permit uproot his/her family if the rules of the system can be changed at any time?

Canada is a land of immigrants. Canada was built by immigrants. Canada will continue to be built by immigration. Our economic future depends on sound immigration policy. Yes, we do need to address security concerns of the post-September 11 era. The world is watching how Canada deals with immigration. The irony of Both Bill C-11 and the new regulations is that they are anti-immigration vehicles. They penalize the legitimate applicant while letting asylum seekers and undesirables who step on our soil in through the back door. If we are to be a pro-immigration country, we need to match our legislation and regulations with out intent and our vision.