:
Maybe we will get started. It's a little after 10 o'clock. We do have a quorum.
We have our first group of witnesses--well, group is the wrong word; I don't believe two constitutes a group. We have with us today, Jenna Hennebry, assistant professor, departments of communication studies and sociology, Wilfrid Laurier University. Jenna, I think we met you in Toronto.
Also, we have François Crépeau, professor of international law. Mr. Crépeau was on our video conferencing last week and it didn't quite work out. Sorry about that. It wasn't your fault. I think the problem originated on this end. We don't even know yet how it came about. In any event, we're not anticipating any problems today--thank heavens.
Welcome to both of you.
It is Monday, and people travel on Monday, trying to get their flights and what have you. Some people might be a little late, but I think we can get started. We have a quorum.
I'll put it in your hands. I imagine you both have opening statements to make. Whoever is going first, please feel free to begin on consideration of part 6, .
Go right ahead.
:
Thank you very much for inviting me here. Although I have a number of concerns that I want to bring up with respect to Bill --in particular part 6, obviously--I'm going to focus on a population that I've spent a great deal of time researching and a on set of migration issues, focused on temporary migration. I want to do this because I believe Bill C-50 could have significant consequences with respect to temporary foreign worker programs and temporary migration in general. I have quite a number of concerns, but I will pour through them kind of quickly, and then we'll have a chance to come back to particular points I make, if you would like further information.
I believe the budget allocations for Citizenship and Immigration and the proposed changes to the IRPA do not address the backlog but instead encourage temporary migration. I see this taking place because the foreign worker program is a faster alternative to bringing in permanent immigrants, but it circumvents the points system. I believe this heightens the possibility for discrimination on the basis of race, country of origin, gender--since the majority of foreign workers are men--political affiliation, sexual identity, etc.
With Bill , more employers may turn to the foreign worker program as an alternative, even more than they have in the last year or so. I'll speak to that in a minute. Employers, I think, will turn to this program instead of waiting, and they are already tired of waiting for the government to admit many high-skilled and low-skilled permanent applicants waiting in the backlog, as they have put it, many of whom are family members of immigrants who are already in Canada. I find it interesting, with such argued labour shortages, that we see the backlog as a problem as compared to a potential resource for the Canadian economy.
I think it's interesting that in 2007 we didn't meet our permanent immigrant targets, while our foreign worker program and the number of temporary foreign workers increased dramatically. We saw more than 150,000 foreign workers entering during that period of time.
I think what's disturbing, actually, is that there's no cap on the number of foreign workers admitted through the foreign worker program, and obviously there can be no backlog because it's employer driven. It's an entirely employer-driven program. According to Human Resources and Social Development Canada, we've seen a 122% increase in employer requests for low-skilled workers, as well as a 39% increase for high-skilled workers, between 2005 and 2007. We're going to see this pressure increase, and if we have a system that is basically pushing employers to look for foreign workers instead of waiting for workers to be processed, we're going to see that number increase.
I also believe that Bill enables increased private and economic interests driving policy in immigration. As I've mentioned, I think it encourages temporary foreign workers and therefore an employer-driven immigration system. It also creates the potential for a greater number of third-party recruiters and employment agencies, who already play a significant role for employers by locating foreign workers and setting up their contracts. There's a lot of concern about these agencies being unregulated and basically a potential for greater exploitation and criminal behaviour as well. In most provinces, these organizations are not regulated. Certainly, that is the case in Ontario.
There has also been much discussion about using the provincial nominee program in conjunction with the foreign worker program. Although this does provide a small window of opportunity for workers to gain access to Canadian residency, it does nothing to remove private interests from determining who will be Canada's immigrants. It also does nothing to regularize it, standardize it, such as providing a three-year period across the board for all workers. It does vary by program, but generally there is no direct path for foreign workers. This basically means that a foreign worker can be working in Canada for two or three years, and then at the point at which they conclude their contract and they want to stay in Canada permanently--maybe they have a Canadian spouse, or fiancé, as in my case, or they may even have a job offer--under Bill the minister would be under no obligation to even consider their application. I think that is problematic on a couple of levels.
I think Bill heightens the vulnerability of foreign workers because of that very problem where temporary foreign workers basically do not need to apply for permanent status because they may only be considered as applicants if the minister deems it so—this comes from my reading of proposed section 87.3, where it will be up to the minister to decide whether to consider that foreign worker or not.
I think it's important to note that many foreign workers apply for refugee status after working in Canada for a number of years, particularly the low-skilled foreign workers. Also, quite a number, if they don't receive any other status, we believe go undocumented or basically overstay, and this leads to a real problem, because we don't see appropriate monitoring and statistics and tracking, so we don't really know where this population is and the kinds of health risks this may pose. With respect to foreign workers, there are different procedures for evaluating health and health screening--with respect to temporary foreign worker programs--than there are for permanent immigrants. It depends on length of stay, and of course there's nothing to ensure that length of stay doesn't in fact turn into a much longer time than anticipated.
With respect to health, one more point I want to make is that really I'm concerned that the minister has not, or Bill has not, considered the impacts it might have on health screening of immigrant and foreign worker applications. I think it's important to recognize also that foreign workers, especially those in low-skilled categories, will have been foreign workers in many other countries prior to the point at which they enter Canada. This may be a different factor than immigrant populations, so you may be talking about a different set of health risks and a different set of health considerations.
I think, overall, poses significant challenges to Canadian multiculturalism and social cohesion. As I've said, the foreign worker programs encourage a hierarchical system based on country of origin and often gender, and moving to a system that encourages more temporary foreign workers is problematic. I also think there are a number of challenges if you have a combination of populations working together, with foreign workers, immigrants, and Canadian citizens vying for similar jobs and having difficulty. If you have an immigrant wanting to sponsor a family member and not being able to do so, and instead they see a foreign worker coming in temporarily to fill jobs, I think that creates conditions ripe for conflict, ripe for racism, and potential problems for Canadian multiculturalism.
:
I will be speaking French.
[English]
But I can answer questions and reply to comments in English, if you so wish.
[Translation]
I had an opportunity to read the letter addressed to you by the Barreau du Québec, as well as the one from the Canadian Bar Association. I am part of the Barreau du Québec's Immigration and Citizenship Advisory Committee. I was not involved in its work, because I was abroad, although I do share its concerns. Members of the Barreau du Québec will be appearing this afternoon, if I am not mistaken. So, I will let them address the specific points they raised.
Since you have invited me to appear as an individual, I will be making my own personal observations. I would like to talk about the context and principle associated with the rights of migrants. At the present time, there is a strong tendency for people to believe that foreigners have fewer rights than the rest of the population, and that their rights are not as deserving of respect as those of others. That applies, not only in Canada, but to most countries that receive immigrants. That strong tendency is apparent in government policies, the media and in society in general. I think it warrants discussion.
Foreigners have rights. Under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, foreigners have the same rights as other individuals protected by the Charter, except the right to vote, to be elected to office, to be educated in the language of the minority, and to enter and to remain in Canada. All the other rights apply to everyone, and that includes anyone in Canada, as well as foreigners. Foreigners are no less human than we are when it comes to protecting their fundamental rights. In that respect, the fact that they are not allowed to enter and remain in Canada does not mean that we can do whatever we like with their file. We cannot just treat them any way we like, because we are talking about immigration.
Since the 1950s, administrative law, which includes immigration law, has become so sophisticated that it is now at least as likely to violate fundamental rights as is the criminal law. When I was in school 30 years ago, we talked about the duty of fairness and procedural justice. The legal guarantees established in administrative law were intended to favour those subject to that law. With the coming into force of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom in 1984, the concept of fundamental justice was introduced, a concept that obviously applies to the right to life, security and freedom for all, be they foreigners, citizens or permanent residents.
Under a progressive concept of rights and freedoms, we developed for ourselves, here in Canada, a set of individual guarantees that force the government to be accountable for its actions. They are the duty to give the reasons for its decisions, and the many forms of recourse provided under the legal system for all those who are subject to laws and regulations, either citizens or foreigners, so that there is an opportunity to review administrative decisions that affect them and affect their rights. Among other things, the Charter forces the government to justify each and every decision which is likely to impact the rights of those affected by them.
However, there is a tendency to feel that foreigners are not entitled to that treatment when it comes to immigration. There is a tendency to weaken and casualize their legal status. One notes that, under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, immigration law is the only area of federal law where practically all the appeal mechanisms have disappeared. They're all gone. There is judicial review, but only with leave. Appeals by right on matters of fact have disappeared. Yet, where refugee protection is concerned, questions of fact are fundamental. Now there is never any possibility of review.
Under the criminal law, two levels of appeal are deemed to be perfectly normal, but under immigration law, not even one is available. The fact that the Immigration and Refugee Board still does not have an appeal division clearly illustrates that fact. There is no avenue of appeal on the facts, and yet this is the only decision in Canada that can result in the death, torture or arbitrary detention of a person. Over the last 20 years, it was not deemed to be a normal thing to create an appeal mechanism to ensure that the facts have been appropriately assessed.
Bill also contains a number of provisions along the same lines. One provision makes it possible to render no decision—either positive or negative—which, theoretically—we will see whether the courts go along with this—would have the effect of prohibiting judicial review. Because there would have been no decision, there could be no judicial review. It is felt that the affected party is not entitled to judicial review.
The same applies to the Minister, in terms of not rendering a decision on applications made outside of Canada on humanitarian grounds, and to the officer, in terms of not issuing a visa, for the simple reason that no decision has been made.
The Minister also has the option of issuing instructions that will establish priorities regarding the decisions to be made on individual files. However, these instructions will not go through the normal process of discussion and consultation—which is what occurs in your Committee, when it studies bills or regulations—put in place to ensure that such bills and regulations consider the public interest. So, these instructions will not be subject to the normal process of accountability.
Based on the premise that underlies all of these issues, a foreigner will not be entitled to the same guarantees as a citizen, is not worthy of the same protection as regards his rights, and can be treated in a discretionary, even arbitrary manner—one that we would consider unacceptable were it to apply to us. I am here to challenge that premise.
Foreigners have the same right to dignity as we do. When it comes to the processing of their applications, they should be entitled to the same procedural guarantees. Of course, they do not have the right to enter and remain in Canada. But, as regards the process for deciding to deport or remove someone, or refuse a visa application or refugee claim, they should be entitled to the same procedural guarantees that we would demand for ourselves in similar circumstances. Why? Well, because those procedural guarantees ensure the credibility of the system in the eyes of citizens and all those who are subject to it. People can believe in the system because it provides an avenue of appeal with respect to individual decisions, as well as a consultation process, such as this one, regarding instructions.
[English]
Justice must not only be done; it must be seen to be done.
[Translation]
It is important to recognize that this is a matter of fairness, and not just administrative convenience, particularly since foreigners are already much more vulnerable because of their status and violations of their fundamental rights. My colleague referred to this earlier.
That was what the Supreme Court said in the Charkaoui case, after successive ministers had claimed that the provisions of the Act complied with the Charter. I think it's a shame, particularly where immigration matters are concerned—although this is not the only area—that we have decided to leave it up to the courts to remind us of the importance of protecting fundamental rights, as occurred with the Aboriginal people, inmates, gays and lesbians.
Today, the same applies to immigrants. The courts will be the ones telling parliamentarians and the government what they have to do. That projects an image of Canada to the rest of the world that, in my opinion, is extremely counterproductive and certainly inconsistent with the image it has had in the last 30 years.
If one sees democracy as a complex relationship between political representation, the protection of fundamental rights and the rule of law—in other words, access to avenues of appeal—it is quite clear that immigrants, whether we are talking about temporary workers or illegal alien workers, do not benefit from political representation.
What do they have left? Protection of their fundamental rights and an avenue of appeal in a country that believes in the rule of law. If they are denied that kind of due process, as well as any discussion of instructions that affect them, that means there is no democratic guarantee in place to protect them. From that standpoint, I think there is a need to provide all of them, and particularly specific categories of immigrants who are vulnerable, a status that includes specific legal guarantees.
In reality, we have developed for ourselves a society that tries to increasingly abide by the rule of law. The Immigration and Refugee Board is the top administrative tribunal in Canada in terms of the number of cases it deals with. It is an important group. I find it very disturbing to note that, for a category that includes many people in Canada, we are establishing a form of treatment that we would not accept for ourselves in similar circumstances and which takes us back several decades in terms of our administrative law.
Thank you.
:
First, as you said, this country has been built by many types of people. For my part, I always think that we need a lot more refugees than we have now, and we need a lot more refugees because refugees will be thankful to have been saved from their plights in their own countries or from lingering in camps and would be happy to be given the opportunity to start new lives for themselves and their kids. I think that's a good starting point. Historically, even though they weren't called refugees and didn't come as refugees but as settlers, the Doukhobors were happy to be able to live in a land where they were free to practise their religion. To me, that's a key element.
I think we need to answer diversified needs. Entering as a temporary worker is not in itself a bad way to enter the country if conditions are in place so that it doesn't become servitude, as you were saying. That may mean a few elements are needed to give them, first, a legal status with legal guarantees so that they can protect themselves in the vulnerable conditions into which temporary work puts them, and second, a way out of that status that offers them some hope.
So there are two points. One is that we need legal guarantees; we need to make sure they are not at the mercy of the whims of the employer. We have seen that.
I think in our decision-making process we should listen a lot more to what sociologists have to say--and I'm a lawyer. I think sociologists tell us the level of vulnerability of these people. They tell us that many live-in caregivers, for example, simply don't complain; they just grind their teeth and wait until it's over so that they can get permanent residence, and then they move on.
We know that at the bar. We've had an issue at the bar of Quebec in recent years. The issue is that immigrants don't complain when their lawyers do something wrong. They simply don't. They'll find another $2,000; they'll find another lawyer, and they'll give $2,000 to another lawyer. They don't complain. The mechanism for complaints against lawyers doesn't work with immigrants, because they're vulnerable and they don't think they're going to win and they don't want to take the risk of sticking their heads out. That's a big issue, and we have to understand that level of vulnerability and provide the guarantees that go with it. That includes recourses. That includes the possibility of going on appeal. That includes making sure NGOs have the tools to defend individual people. That's the first point.
That may include, for example, live-in caregivers, if we take that example of vulnerable people. Many NGOs are rejecting the program altogether, although it serves a purpose and many families are happy to have a live-in caregiver. What we need is a lot more control. It's true that it means spending more money, but we need a lot more control and we need to have applicable laws. I'm shocked every time I have to say that the laws on job safety in Quebec don't apply to live-in caregivers, and I think that's a shame. We need a lot more guarantees to protect them while they are here.
The second point is that we need to give them a way out--and upwards, not downwards. It's not simply saying they can go back home with the little money they've made. We could think of the live-in caregiver program as a model here. For example, for temporary workers we should somehow put in a rule similar to the one we use for citizenship: if you've lived in Canada for, let's say, a total of three years--that makes 1,093 days, or something like that--in the past five or six years as a temporary worker, you have access to permanent residence. You'd need security checks and health checks and everything, but you'd have access. You've given this country the edge in terms of competitiveness and you've participated in making this country more wealthy and more prosperous--well, we are going to recognize this. You haven't broken any laws and you've been a good citizen, so we're going to give you a way upward in this society, because you've shown that you will be a good citizen. That would probably empower these migrants, who would say, “I can become a citizen in this country. I'm going to make sure, if we have proper controls, that my status is respected.”
I'm pleased to have you both here today.
As members of Parliament in high-density areas, we have a lot of immigration, and much of what you've told us we've experienced. However, I think your opinions are certainly more articulate than I could ever....
The problem I have with , and I'd like your comments on this, is the fact that it is turning more power over to the bureaucrats. When they say “minister”, we all know it doesn't mean minister; it means bureaucrats. I think most of us who have dealt directly with the bureaucrats have heard racist comments, and I'll even tell you a few of them.
I called about Jalandhar, and I was told the reason we have such a high percentage of people turned down in Jalandhar is because they were Punjabis, and Punjabis tended to lie more than others. Now, if that isn't just plain ordinary discrimination, I don't know what is. We have a lawyer in Hamilton who has talked about racist comments he's read from bureaucrats.
I'm not saying that bureaucrats are all racist. In fact, it's probably a very, very small percentage. However, on the refugee board...in The Walrus magazine, we've seen that there's been political intervention. And that doesn't mean intervention by politicians; it means intervention by bureaucrats, where there was definite bias against the Romas.
When we're dealing with giving more power to the minister, we're not, we're giving it more to the bureaucracy. When equality is ignored, the first victim is justice.
I would like to talk to Mr. Crépeau sometime about reasonable accommodation and have his opinion on that, because he's pretty fiery when it comes to assimilation and treatment of immigrants.
What I want to know is, do you think our charter has made politicians very lazy? We often pass legislation and say, “Well, the charter will take care of it if it's wrong”. When everyone who presents before us is of the same opinion as you, why aren't we doing it? What's the down side?
:
You're asking a question that would be a good question for a whole graduate seminar: the effect of the charter on the political system in Canada.
One element that is key, and that would also be an element of an answer for the previous comments.... What the charter has done is ask the government to justify each and every decision that might affect rights and freedoms for one individual. This means that in the early years of the charter, for example, the government has had to go through all the laws on the books to make sure they were so-called charter proof.
What it means nowadays is that very often there is a game, and that's probably normal when you have a standard, where you have people trying to see what the standard means and how you can avoid the standard--not necessarily evade it but avoid it--or how you can do what you want to do while respecting the standards. That's what lawyers do with tax law all the time. So it's not something that is a problem in itself.
What I think it does is put the government, and the bureaucrats, as you were saying, always in a defensive position. For example, if we come back to the security certificate issue--because that's to me very enlightening--several ministers in a row from different parties and different governments have told us, “It's okay. We've checked that with our lawyers; there's no problem with the charter.” And this has been said of many acts of Parliament.
Then we get to the courts and the courts say, “No, you're wrong. Once again, you're wrong, and we'll tell you why.” Then we send it back to the political system, and the political system has to answer and provide a second type of procedure to see if it works. We'll go back to the Supreme Court, and maybe it will be accepted and maybe not.
What I'm concerned with is that, especially with immigrants...you see the number of cases that have gone to the Supreme Court in recent years on immigration issues or on multiculturalism issues with people who have recently come, etc. We have a tendency to think that foreigners should have fewer rights. That's our sort of common belief. When I was young, aboriginals were nowhere to be seen--they had no rights--and that was taken for granted. There had to be an overhaul of our whole conceptual thinking, and I think we're at that point for immigrants. We have to think now, and governments especially have to think proactively about how they can protect the rights of these people. What are the issues? When we are trying constantly to limit their access to justice--especially to recourses--what we are doing is placing a time bomb in front of us and waiting for it to explode; the courts will say, “No, you can't do that. We've told you time and again.” I think in terms of democracy, that's a problem.
I would like to begin with a little history. I think it's important to understand what part 6 is trying to do.
Prior to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, the issuance of visas was pretty much a discretionary matter. Even qualified people were denied visas. IRPA brought us in line with other jurisdictions and really established the rule of law within our immigration process in order to prevent some of the historic difficulties Canada has had with respect to the entry of various people.
IRPA, at the time it came in, was framework legislation. Many of you were on that committee when we were discussing it. As does the legislation of today and recent years, this framework provided great regulatory authority within the act. Very broad regulations were permitted to be made, and this committee heard great submissions with respect to dealing with the transparency of these new regulations that were going to come out under IRPA.
How do we go ahead and make sure there is some type of scrutiny with respect to the regulations? Section 5 in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act answered that question for us. It resulted in subjecting the regulatory-making powers of the minister to great scrutiny. It provided that each of the houses would receive a copy of these regulations, and they would go to the appropriate committees.
What do we have now as it stands today? I submit that there is sufficient parliamentary oversight consistent with the principles of responsible government and democracy with respect to the regulatory-making power of the minister. We have a transparent system. It permits input and consultation through gazetting, and there really is no perceived arbitrariness with respect to regulations that are passed. Now with the introduction in part 6, that changes. It brings forward instructions with respect to all aspects of visa issuance, except refugee selection outside of Canada. It affects our family class, economic class, temporary class, and humanitarian class. It affects all of that.
What is the result of these instructions? Quite candidly, we have instructions being issued with no oversight. Unlike regulations, which I submit to you have tremendous power and tell us how to interpret our act, there is no oversight with respect to these instructions.
What are the dangers? What will this result in? In our respectful submission, perhaps one of the most dangerous things is the ability of people to lobby the government in power at the time with respect to the manner of developing and issuing instructions. It is all secret. No one will know. We have heard they will meet with unions and various organizations, but that's all in private. Citizens will not know how these instructions will come to be.
On judicial review and the ability to review a decision of a visa officer abroad, we are told in part 6 that a decision to return or not process is not a decision. Therefore, how are we going to go ahead with oversight of our visa officers without the ability of our courts to review a decision to return that really is not a decision according to part 6?
We've heard great talk about this backlog. Let us be clear: part 6 does not affect the backlog. It will not have any effect on our backlog, we submit. Right now there are matters to deal with the backlog, which the present government, to their credit, is dealing with. Individuals who have work permits are expedited through the process, in between four to six months in some countries, and they are able to get their immigration. There are provincial nominee programs under which immigration visas are issued, again within six months. There are SWAT teams that the government sends into various visa offices to deal with the situation as it now exists. It is our submission that we do not need this new legislation to deal with this problem. The minister could, or the government in power could, increase the points under the selection system with respect to economic foreign nationals and therefore reduce the intake.
It is our submission that if this legislation passes it will result in Canada's going back to the dark ages of immigration selection and processing. It would allow the minister to operate in an unfettered manner, opening the back door to many interest groups. There are other initiatives that the government has taken with respect to assisting in the speed of applications. We've heard about the Canada experience class. There have been consultations. That's the way it should be done, and we look forward to seeing the results as they come out.
Those are my submissions with regard to this present situation.
:
I think we have to look at two things here. One is that when IRPA came out, Canada got rid of that concept of, “You're an engineer, there's a list, there's a job waiting for you.” We developed this concept called the human capital model, where we look at your age, your education, your work history, and we hope, based on all those skills and all those assets, you would be able to find work in Canada.
You hear these stories where someone came as an engineer and they're a taxi driver. But I think the new system changed that; it talked about human capital. Perhaps you would be a taxi driver at the beginning, but there wasn't this anticipation that you would be an engineer. It was made very clear, because we got rid of that list.
So we have this new concept of human capital. Then we have a whole other process of people who have jobs waiting for them, employers in Canada, people on work permits, that we're able to pluck out of this backlog as it exists today. I think that sort of solved the process for people who are urgently needed.
Now, there's always the debate on how quick is urgent. Is five months too long for an immigrant? We have to make sure we do the checks, the medical.... I don't know. Maybe we could bring them in on a work permit quicker, in that sense, so if someone has a job waiting for them and they want their immigration.... But the Canada experience class is going to help us out with that as well.
Going back to the 1970s, we talked about streams and pools, certain streams of occupations where we know there are jobs and we can say to people that there is a job waiting for them.
I think we have to look at all of these areas, but it is a very hard question to answer. Governments of today and in the past have all had this difficult question. I really think it's time to sit down and figure out...there is this wonderful country, there is wonderful opportunity, there are wonderful people outside waiting to help us, so how do we manage all of this? I think it's time we took our heads out of the sand and really tried to think of a democratic, responsible way of figuring this out.
:
With regard to charter compliance, it took until 2006 before security certificates got through the Supreme Court and became unconstitutional. That was a quarter of a century from when the charter was enacted. So I hope, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, that you find a different line on charter compliance, because charter rights can be denied for a long time before they're dealt with by the courts.
I was here in 2002 when this thing was put through, and the committee was very much against it. I don't give a damn what any immigration ministers have said since I've been here, because basically they have all been pretty incompetent. Bureaucrats have run the department. So when they're talking about a minister's real power, it's bureaucratic power.
This thing was a total disaster. The reality is that we have a huge backlog, yes, but just imagine if you didn't have a backlog. What would that say about Canada? The fact of the matter is that you can find people in the backlog who the economy desperately needs right now. That is where we have a crisis. And we predicted it back in 2002, that blue-collar immigrants couldn't get in, labour couldn't get in.
Essentially the fault lies with the points system and how the points were allocated. If we want to keep the points system, which has been praised by all the countries we've looked at, be it Australia, New Zealand, Britain, or the United States, which have undertaken studies, for objectivity and clarity I think the fix has to be in fixing the points.
You mentioned allocating more for family. That makes sense. Allocating more for a job offer makes sense. Our points system is out of whack when you compare it to other countries in terms of being responsive.
So if we decide on that, and we want to keep the points system because we want to keep the objectivity of it, then we have to fine-tune the points system so that a job offer means a lot more in terms of getting in the queue. Once you're in the queue, we have to have a method of bringing people out of the queue--so if we need 100 welders, we can grab 100 welders from a backlog. That backlog now doesn't contain any welders, and that's the problem. The government is looking at temporary foreign workers, which I think is totally the wrong way to go in terms of satisfying the shortcomings of the present-day points system.
If we want to fix the system and we want to keep what is good about it, then we have to be a lot more responsive in terms of meshing the points system with the requirements for the country economically. Labourers are needed in this country, and the only way they can come in is either as refugees who happen to be labourers.... But in terms of the economic files, the only way they get in is through the temporary foreign worker program, which creates a whole slew of other problems where people are exposed to servitude, exploitation, and the list goes on and on.
My whole argument is, make the points system responsive to the needs of the economy, be able to fast-track people. Processing doesn't take that long. The only reason we have a backlog is that when we have 500,000 people applying, we take out 250,000. Well, guess what? The backlog will have grown by 250,000. There you have a backlog. But the big problem with this backlog is that we don't have welders and we don't have labourers.
People have expectations that if they come because of their degree and knowledge of the language, they're going to get some job that is commensurate with their experience. We heard evidence in committee of an engineer who comes here, can't find a job, and is very unhappy. In the meantime, you have a bricklayer who comes here and finds a job and is very happy.
I'd like to have you comment on that.
Mr. Green, I listened to your discussion earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary. I am disappointed to hear of such significant changes being suggested with respect to immigration, considering that, when the Conservatives took office, there were only five commissioner positions to fill, and now, there are 50. There is a lot of talk of problems with the processing of applications, but I think we should at least begin by appointing commissioners and possibly even increasing the number of commissioners, in order to resolve the problem. In any case, we are stuck with the current bill.
Earlier, you were also saying that you would agree to the idea of finding a different way of reducing the number of people in the queue, by setting different criteria. I would be interested in hearing your views. You have said that it is undemocratic for choices to be made and priorities set at the discretion of an individual—the Minister, in this case.
If certain priorities were to be discussed by a committee, with a view to developing grids for analyzing applications, would that be a potential solution? You talked about the family class. Family reunification could be a priority. Would you see that as an acceptable process for setting priorities, or do you still believe that all applications must be reviewed based on the date they were received, whatever the purpose? Did you follow me?