OCASI deputation on changes to IRPA under Bill C-50
May 15, 2008
On Monday, May 12th OCASI appeared as a witness before the House of Commons’ Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration to speak about Part 6 of Bill C-50 (budget implementation bill), which includes the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA).
OCASI highlighted its concerns about the proposed changes to IRPA and suggested that any major change to Canadian immigration laws should be introduced and dealt with as a stand-alone legislative amendment. This would allow the changes to be debated by the House of Commons and provide Canadians with the opportunity to have input according to regular parliamentary procedures.
The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will be issuing a report on these hearings on May 15, 2008, including recommendations to the federal government.
Some of the concerns raised by OCASI before the Committee, plus a few other issues we did not address due to insufficient time are the following:
Under Section 6 of Bill C-50, too much arbitrary power will be given to the current and future Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration to decide what kinds of immigrants will be allowed to enter Canada. According to the current wording of the proposed amendments, future ministerial instructions to process (or not process) different categories of applications will depend exclusively on “the Minister’s opinion” of what will best meet the government’s immigration goals.
This means that if the amendments are adopted, there will be a lack of checks and balances in the decision making process. The government undertook to respond to this criticism and others by way of a press release (April 8th). OCASI’s comments on that release are detailed below.
If adopted, the proposed changes will mean that immigration applicants will lose their legal right to receive a visa even if they meet the requirements of the law. Under the current legislation, if an application meets the requirements of the Act, a visa “shall” be given to the applicant. This allows the applicant to appeal the decision at a tribunal if there is a breach in the process. But that recourse will be lost with the proposed changes, which state that a visa “may” be issued to the applicant if the application meets legal requirements.
If passed, the proposed changes will affect family reunification. Subsection 87.3(1) under the proposed amendments specify that ministerial instructions will apply to “sponsorship applications made by persons referred to in subsection 13(1)” of IRPA, which refers to family class sponsorship applications. The government has been saying to the media that family reunification will not be affected, but Section 6 of Bill C-50 says otherwise.
At the same time, if the government intends to prioritize rapidly processing certain categories of skilled workers’ applications, that would necessarily entail a de-prioritized treatment of family reunification applications.
If passed, the proposed changes will affect Humanitarian and Compassionate applications made from outside Canada. This is stated in subsection 87.3(1) under the proposed amendments which will apply to “requests under subsection 25(1) made by foreign nationals outside Canada.”
An anti-racist analysis of potential outcomes of the proposed changes has also been conveyed by several community stakeholders. Given the historic racist inequities of Canada’s immigration legislation and policies, there is reason to remain vigilant of potential racially differentiated impacts of any changes in immigration selection. This vigilance would need to include an awareness of how Eurocentrism, Islamophopbia and racial prejudice continue to shape current trends in public opinion and politics in Canada.
The changes would allow for ministerial instructions to be issued at any time, and without oversight or accountability to Parliament. This is troubling, regardless of who the Minister is or which party is in government. Some lobby groups have made recent arguments that people from certain areas in the Global South are not able to effectively integrate in Canadian society because their values and norms are simply imcompatible. These arguments are often made in seemingly neutral terms, that do not explicitly or intentionally target particular racial or cultural groups in a negative way. However given global inequities and resulting from historic oppressive practices such as the enslavement of African peoples and colonization of racialized peoples by various European powers, any ‘neutral’ policy has the potential to negatively affect future immigrants from the global south.
One example is the recent proposal to include mandatory English or French language testing for all future applicants in the skilled immigrant class.
Finally, OCASI objects to the emerging practice of using immigration legislation as a political pawn. By including Section 6 in Bill C-50, the budget Bill, immigration is linked irrevocably to a vote of confidence in the government. Immigration is too important for Canada to be locked into a mechanism that does not allow for proper debate, consultation and all party involvement in legislative change.
Responding to criticism from members of the public, community organizations and groups, the government announced on April 8th a number of “guiding principles” that would explain how ministerial instructions would be issued regarding what immigration applications would be processed. OCASI is not satisfied that these guidelines effectively answer all the legitimate concerns we have regarding the proposals. It is important to note that a ministerial statement of intent does not have the force of law and is not binding. The intent is potentially subject to change in the future, whether by the current Minister, a future Minister under the current government, or by future Ministers under other governments.
The government states in its “guiding principles” that, in view of issuing instructions to decide what kinds of applications are to be processed (and what kinds will not be processed), it will consult with other federal departments, the provinces, businesses and labour. OCASI is concerned that community-based organizations including immigrant organizations and organizations that serve immigrants and refugees, are not to be included. This raises the concern that immigration policy would be dominated or defined entirely by the needs and concerns of the business sector to the exclusion of the impact on immigrant communities in areas such as family reunification.
The government’s “guiding principles” mention as well compliance with the Charter of Rights. Again, an unchecked process may lead to many kinds of instructions. These could be challenged in court if they are proved to be incompatible with the Charter, but ideally there should be no need to engage in long and costly procedures (the more so now that the Court Challenges Program has been eliminated). To avert undesirable litigation triggered by the deployment of differential negative impacts, any legislation changes to Canadian immigration should include checks and balances in the decision making process and consultation with communities and their experts in systemic issues, discrimination and anti-racism.
Consultation with the not-for-profit immigrant and refugee serving sector, immigrant communities’ organizations and coalitions, and anti-racist experts should be a given in the context of the Voluntary Sector Initiative Accord and Codes of Good Practices. Signed by the government of Canada and the not-for-profit sector in 2002, these documents explicitly recognize and value the importance of the not-for-profit sector in improving policy throughout Canada’s history, and they express the commitment to a series of principles ensuring collaboration between the parties of the Accord.
Instead, the government is narrowing the range of stakeholders and perspectives it takes into account in its decision making process. When asked about the reason why the IRPA amendments are included in a budget bill, Minister Diane Finley declared to the Standing Committee on Finance: “Our objective is to help business stay in business”. For its part, the government’s release on April 8th states that the proposed changes are meant “to align the immigration system with labour market needs”.
OCASI recognizes the importance of a healthy economy. But we call into question that labour market needs should be reduced simply to what business lobbies may formulate as expectations. OCASI further poses the question as to whether the current shifts reveal that Canada’s immigration vision is being hijacked by powerful lobbies’ interests – or, alternatively whether the government is simply operating a devolution of immigration to certain business coalitions. Labour market policy seems to be informing immigration policy, but Canada’s immigration vision of fully settled and integrated immigrants participating equally in Canadian life does not seem to inform labour market policy.
Click here for Section 6 (amendments to IRPA) of Bill C-50.
Click here for “Questions & Answers” regarding Bill C-50. Pour la version en français, veuillez cliquer ici.
Click here for “10 reasons to be concerned” about Bill C-50. Pour la version en français, veuillez cliquer ici.