CIMM Committee Related Document

May 15, 2008

Mr. Rob Merrifield, M.P.
Chair
Standing Committee on Finance
Room 304
Justice Building
House of Commons
Ottawa

 

Dear Mr. Merrifield,

Further to your letter dated April 17, 2008, the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has studied the subject-matter of Part 6 of Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget.  In the two weeks made available to us, the Committee heard from a number of witnesses in a series of extended meetings.  Although time did not permit for a comprehensive study, we can provide you with the following observations and proposal.

Canada has been a world leader in developing immigration policy.  Our country pioneered an open and transparent points system for economic migration that has been replicated by progressive countries around the world.  We are proud of this heritage and Canada’s reputation for having a fair and humane immigration system.

However, Canadians agree that our system faces pressing problems that must be addressed.  A backlog of more than 900,000 applications waiting to be processed leaves prospective immigrants waiting years to come to Canada.  And there is widespread consensus that our system needs to do a better job of matching Canada’s labour market needs with immigrants’ skills and potential.

When the changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act were first introduced in Bill C‑50 with the stated purpose of addressing both challenges, they were met with great interest.  However, with time, concerns with the current proposal have surfaced. 

Considering the vital role immigration has played, and continues to play, in building Canada, the Committee believes that fundamental changes to the system should only be made following comprehensive and meaningful consultation.  Changes should be introduced in stand-alone legislation that is referred to this Committee for study, and presented with clear and detailed explanatory information.  None of these conditions were fulfilled in relation to the changes introduced in Part 6 of Bill C-50.  Many witnesses expressed their disappointment at not having been consulted before these changes were introduced.

In terms of substantive points of concern, Committee members wish to highlight the following aspects of the proposed changes.

• We do not feel that the changes proposed in Part 6 would address the backlog.  Many witnesses pointed out that the proposed changes would only apply to applications and requests made on or after February 27, 2008.  Accordingly, the proposed amendments would not speed up processing of applications made before this date, and could potentially result in even longer waiting times for these people as new applications are prioritized.
• Many witnesses suggested to the Committee that, in addition to not meeting its intended purposes, the proposed changes would jeopardize the predictability and fairness of the current system.  Discretionary powers would allow the Minister to prioritize who will get into Canada, and even to direct which categories of applications may be returned without being processed.  Currently every prospective immigrant can at least be assured that their application will be assessed.  Such ministerial discretion to prioritize and dispose of applications lacks transparency and creates uncertainty for prospective immigrants.  Rather than centralize this responsibility with the Minister, Committee members feel that Parliament should retain its oversight of, and accountability for, immigration policy.
• While a few witnesses were satisfied with the consultations that are proposed to take place before instructions would be issued under the proposed changes, most witnesses were alarmed that publication in the Canada Gazette would occur after the instructions came into effect, with no opportunity for consultation.  Witnesses would prefer broad-based consultations that would be publicized before the instructions.
• Witnesses expressed concerns about the potential impact the proposed changes could have on non-economic immigration categories, such as family class and humanitarian and compassionate applications.  The Minister stated that the discretion is intended to be applied in respect of economic immigrants only, but, as expressed by some witnesses, our land is ruled by law, not intentions.

While the majority of witnesses who appeared before the Committee raised concerns with Part 6, such as those enunciated above, they were unanimously in support of improving the system and getting a handle on the backlog.  Some recommended alternative means of achieving these goals.  Some other witnesses, who were in favour of Part 6, were not certain that the proposed changes would be the best approach, but wanted to support the government’s efforts to effect change.  The Committee is of the view that, with adequate consultation and deliberation, we could build on common interests in improving the system and conceive an alternative approach that would accomplish our goals while protecting the integrity of our system.

Accordingly, the Committee makes the following proposal:

• That Part 6 be withdrawn from Bill C-50; and
• That the Citizenship and Immigration Committee commence a study on the Canadian immigration system with a view to finding a consensus on preferred alternative means of addressing identified challenges.   In much the same way that the Committee’s report, Reclaiming Citizenship for Canadians, informed Bill C-37, legislation that addressed the lost Canadians issue, recommendations from the proposed study of the immigration system should inform a new legislative initiative.

Members wish to thank the Finance Committee for having extended the invitation to provide our input on this matter of fundamental importance.

Yours truly,

[Original signed by]

 

Norman Doyle, M.P.
Chair

Attachment: Dissenting Opinion of the Conservative Party of Canada

cc:   Members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
      Jean-François Pagé, Clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance