CIMM Committee Report

NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY REPORT
JUDY WASYLYCIA-LEIS, MP

The Citizenship and Immigration Committee has made considerable progress toward re-shaping the poor set of proposals we received into a much-improved set of regulations for the government to consider. In so doing, the Committee was assisted greatly by the many witnesses who appeared before it and the many others who contacted us to express their serious concerns about the original regulatory proposals. This public outcry has been instrumental in improving the regulations. Despite a number of significant changes, however, there remain outstanding issues that demand further comment.

Common threads running through witness testimony told us the package was inadequate to meet the goal of opening Canada’s doors wider, left many issues unresolved, and appeared not to have anticipated many of its indirect consequences. The compressed deadline of June 28th was repeatedly cited as a contributing factor. The overriding impression was one of disappointment, of an opportunity lost.

Recently released census data shows Canada’s growth rate at a meager four per cent. Economists predict this could lead to labour shortages within five years if left unchecked. Our future economic well-being has never more clearly depended on a successful immigration strategy. Yet we have not attained even the limited target of one per cent immigration growth per year pledged by this government. The new Act and its regulations offer no vision of where a population-based immigration policy would take us, let alone a focused strategy on how to get there.

There is no evidence that the proposed point system with its increased emphasis on higher education, language proficiency and degree of experience — even as modified by the Committee — will, in fact, open the door wider. What is clear is that many who have skills to contribute may be denied. Women, who are less likely to have formally recognized skills and education, will be particularly disadvantaged.

Ironically, some of Canada’s most successful immigration efforts, like Manitoba’s Provincial Nominee Program, place more emphasis on skills and adaptability. These programs are meant to complement, not replace the federal Act — a role they are playing increasingly as they proliferate across the country.

A recent study by the Canadian Council for Social Development paints a disturbing picture in which highly qualified immigrants are experiencing high rates of unemployment and underemployment — especially if they are among racialized minorities. New Democrats called for a gender and anti-racist analysis, when the Act was being debated. We renew our call for these measures to ensure that, at the very least, the Act and regulations do not contribute to discriminatory outcomes.

The CCSD and other studies show that foreign qualifications and work experience are undervalued, leading to severe problems in resettlement — a critical aspect to the success of any immigration program and one that this federal government has virtually ignored. Immigrants and immigration patterns are changing worldwide and our success in attracting future immigrants will depend in large part on our reputation. The government, by not ensuring recognition of credentials and not investing pro-actively in resettlement, is coasting on past glories that will quickly dissipate in the face of immigrants’ direct experience of unemployment and discrimination. Bad news travels fast, and in this case places Canada’s future economic prosperity at risk. We must also be wary of overemphasizing narrow economic considerations at the expense of the balance with family class immigration — a proven bulwark of our immigration program. Strong family ties still have an important role to play in future immigration.

In addition to measures to improve credential recognition, several other issues of fairness and equity remain outstanding. For example, New Democrats have called for changes to the Live-in Caregiver Program that have not been addressed in the regulations. Domestic caregivers’ skills need to be recognized and those entering Canada under the Caregiver Program should be given permanent resident status. The program should eventually be phased out, but, in the interim, participants should enjoy basic employee rights. Singling out permanent residents for privacy intrusions not applicable to other Canadians is another concern. The need for biometric information on "Maple Leaf Cards", for example, has not been adequately demonstrated and this intrusive initiative should be dropped. If, in future, the Minister identifies a need for such information, it should be brought before Parliament and vetted by the Privacy Commissioner.

The proposal to apply the regulations retroactively was met, quite rightly, by a wave of public outrage: the problem of inadequate resourcing and backlogs was not to be solved by unfairly changing the rules mid-stream. Although the Committee has made an effort to tinker with the dates, the unprincipled application of retroactivity still remains. The issue has damaged our reputation and reinforced the impression that Canada is ill-prepared to cope with immigration on the scale it needs. Not a beckoning image.

The failure of the Act to set a clear, welcoming tone is compounded by the government’s reluctance to take on a refugee commitment more appropriate to our capacity. We are far from a world leader in accepting refugees and can certainly do more to relieve the intolerable situation facing those forced to flee oppression. Yet, the regulations continue to throw up barriers like "establishment" criteria that are immigration-based and should have no place in refugee selection.

With the demographic changes in Canada over the last quarter century, we have truly begun to create a place that the entire world can call home. Constructing a new Act and regulations gave us a chance to reflect that new reality and our increasing dependence on immigrants in a bold new vision for future immigration. Instead, these regulations reinforce an Act that speaks more to "tightening up" than to "opening up". Predominance is given to restrictions, keeping people out and discouraging all but the most committed. Many who could adapt and contribute are being excluded. More work needs to be done.