The Alberta Federation of Labour is pleased to have this opportunity to provide its initial reaction to Not Just Numbers, the report of the Immigration Legislative Review Advisory Group

The Federation represents approximately 110,000 Albertans in 43 different union who work in the industrial, service, construction and public sectors. Historically, the Federation has broadly attempted to represent the interests of unorganized workers in the Province as well.

The labour movement has always been intensely interested in immigration and refugee policy in Canada from two perspectives. First, despite some evidence that state policy on immigration has historically been connected to labour market conditions, the labour movement supports an open-door immigration policy. We recognize that immigrants create jobs and economic growth. Despite the narrow-minded attempts by some political groups to link unemployment and job insecurity to immigration, we in the labour movement recognize that it is other, far different public and economic policies, like high interest rates and free trade, and the lack of a national jobs or industrial development strategy that have created our current dismal labour market. The growth of insecure temporary and part-time jobs, declining wage levels and chronically high levels of unemployment are not, in any way, related to immigration levels.

Secondly, the labour movement is also a social movement intensely committed to principles of social justice, humanitarianism and economic equality. We are all too aware of the struggles and hardships of working people around the world, particularly those confronting undemocratic and repressive regimes. We believe that Canada must play a leading role in refugee protection, and also set an example with its overarching immigration policy.

A. Preliminary Concerns

Although we are grateful for the opportunity to express our views on this very important report, we must raise a preliminary objection about the extremely narrow time allotted for public consultations. This is a huge and complex report that contains, among its 168 pages, 172 recommendations - some of which would radically transform Canadian immigration, citizenship and refugee policy and practices. It was not made public until January 6, 1998 - at which point the minister announced what were described as extensive public hearings, but which in reality were five stops in eleven days between February 27th and March 9, 1998. There weren't even any meetings scheduled for Alberta or Saskatchewan.

We were one of the organizations that insisted upon hearings here in Alberta, but we weren't notified of this meeting until February 9th. That simply did not allow us the opportunity to do an adequate and thorough canvas of our affiliated locals for input (which, as a central organization, we are obliged to do), nor, unless we put all of our other activities on hold, did it allow us the time to prepare a complete analysis of this complex document. Consequently, what you will get today is a preliminary reaction from the Alberta labour movement, along with a clear request that further, more in-depth consultations be planned.

We also wish to protest the unnecessary haste of this process. There is no need to rush these hearings, the current immigration and refugee system is not falling apart at the seams. On an issue of this national importance, broad public consultations in every major urban centre are surely justified, so that every concerned citizen and organization has ample opportunity to prepare their response and have their voices heard. We do not need to rush hastily analyzed or hurriedly written laws and regulations into existence.

B. An Overview of the Report

In the main, we found the report lacking in several important areas. First, there are many key concepts that are introduced without adequate explanation or definition. For example, the report talks about facilitating the entry into Canada of persons who 'would enhance Canada's cultural and economic well-being'. But there is no definition of what constitutes Canada's culture, nor what the authors consider to be economic well-being. I can absolutely guarantee you that the Royal Bank of Canada's definition of economic well-being is completely different - and often contradicts - the labour movement's definition of economic well-being. The report recommends offering protection to 'persons in most need at first opportunity', but again does not define how to measure 'most need'.

Secondly, the report recommends significant changes to existing immigration, citizenship and refugee programs without explaining why the current programs need to be changed. Similarly, the report recommends maintaining other programs without providing a rationale.

Finally, there is an implication contained in the statement of principles that 'we should encourage the entry of person who will contribute to Canada's economic well-being' that there are certain types or classes of people whose entry would not contribute to Canada's economic well-being. This is not a minor point or misunderstanding. It is our contention that there is an implicit prejudice underlying this entire document - one that we will deal with later in our submission.

C. A Chapter by Chapter Response to Key Recommendations

As stated earlier, time constraints mean that this document is only a cursory overview and not a rigorous or complete analysis.

Chapter Two: A New Legislative and Accountability Framework

We applaud the suggestion to create separate immigration/citizenship and protection (refugee) acts. Refugees are quite distinct from those persons simply seeking to immigrate to Canada, and should be treated separately. As well, the inclusion of goals and objectives of the protection and immigration acts within the acts is a good step. We might well need a long debate on what those goals and objectives should be and how they should be defined, but such statements do belong in the Acts as do basic policy principles in each area. The recommendation to develop plain-language user guides to the acts and regulations is also of considerable merit.

However, the whole theme of cost recovery is not a good idea. The report supports the continuation of the so-called 'head tax' and countenances the development of application fees that 'reflect the cost of services provided'. This is the first of many suggestions in the report that suggest that wealthy immigrants are preferable to poor immigrants. For the record, the size of a person's pocketbook has no bearing upon what kind of a citizen they will make nor how much they will contribute to their community or to the nation.

Chapter Three. Sharing Respectabilities: Innovative Approaches to Partnership and Cooperation

The proposed Federal-Provincial Council on Immigration and Protection is flawed. First, most Provinces do not have ministers responsible for immigration or refugee issues. Secondly, why are the immigration and refugee acts so carefully split apart, now put back under the same Council?

We not with some concern that consultation is contemplated with 'non-governmental organizations, municipalities, business' but not with labour or church or community organizations - unless we are all included in the added catch-all of 'other interested groups'. We suggest that labour should be specifically recognized as an essential part of these consultations now and in the future.

Chapter Four. Community Participation: Active Integration

We applaud the recommendation to develop national standards for a Canada-wide equivalency assessment of professional qualifications that would be accepted by all provinces, but consider that the same should be provided for skilled trades.

We do, however, explicitly reject the suggestion that knowledge of an official language be a prerequisite for citizenship. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants have successfully integrated in Canada in the past without passing the suggested formal standardized language testing. Many new Canadian citizens right now are performing competently in the workforce and contributing to their communities without passing a rigorous language test.

We also find it offensive to suggest that volunteer/community service could be considered a requirement for citizenship. We should not require anything of our immigrants that we do not require of Canadian citizens - and I am sure that we don't require Canadians to provide volunteer community service or family care. The only circumstance where community service is required of Canadians is when they are so ordered by the courts after conviction of a crime. This requirement would be an insult to immigrants.

Chapter Five. The Family: Essential for Success

The broader definition of spouse to include any partner in an intimate relationship is a step forward, as is the raising of the age limit for dependent children, and the broader definition of family beyond the simple nuclear family.

However the suggestion for a tuition fee for basic language training and the onerous economic liabilities contained in the sponsorship requirements are, once again, sending a clear signal that wealthy immigrants who can afford various fees and financial commitments are more desirable immigrants than those who can not.

Chapter Six. Broadening Canada's Economic Base: Self-Supporting Immigrants

The merging of the current skilled worker, entrepreneur and investor categories into a 'self-supporting class' is not a good idea. We oppose the use of economic criteria in the selection of immigrants.

The suggested core standard for education of workers is suggested to be an 'academic, technical, or trade qualification equivalent to at least two years of full-time post-secondary study in Canada'.

We have several serious objections to this recommendation. First, this encourages Canadian employers to continue to avoid their responsibilities to help train adequate number of skilled workers here in Canada. Why should employers worry about apprenticing or training workers when, every time there is a shortage, they can simply recruit skilled workers from other countries?

Secondly, this requirement is a real bar to workers from lesser developed countries where access to education and training is extremely limited. In a real sense, this requirement could be seen as a bar to workers of colour, and a clear preference to recruiting workers from the developed nations only. What are we saying to the world: that we will only cherry-pick their best and brightest, but that we aren't interested in working class immigrants from disadvantaged nations? This certainly seems arguable given the reports endorsement of the head tax and its support for various other conditional fees and financial requirements.

Finally, we have a real concern with the only apparent entry of unskilled workers to Canada: the recommendations to ease restrictions on temporary foreign workers. We have to be very concerned with employers who must sponsor temporary foreign workers. Because they are temporary and can be sent back home at any time, they are an intimidated workforce that is often used in working conditions and at wage levels that Canadian workers would find intolerable. We suggest that if an employer is willing to pay a living wage and provide decent working conditions in Canada today, they will find no shortage of able workers - they won't have to bring in temporary foreign workers. By 'streamlining' and encouraging this practice, the government would, in essence, be endorsing the exploitation of workers.

The elimination of the live-in caregiver (domestic servants and nannies) program is a step forward. However, given the proposed requirements for the self-supporting class, it is a bit cruel to suggest that they have a real chance at attaining citizenship.

Chapter Seven. Offering Canada's Protection

We do not agree with having a cadre of public employees as protection and appeal officers under the proposed Protection Act governing refugee applications and appeals. The current quasi-judicial system, although flawed by political appointments, is at least at arms length from the government. This proposal appears to imitate the American process. The problem with government employees in these positions is the danger that foreign policy considerations would supplant humanitarian considerations in decision making. The problem refugees from El Salvador had getting recognized in the United States is a good example of how a government that didn't wish a regime it supported to be embarrassed by the granting of refugee status to people fleeing that country can undermine the refugee program.

As we said in our opening, we disagree with the notion of 'most in need'. Our commitment should be to help all legitimate refugees, not to categorize them and provide different levels of service.

We strenuously object to the whole idea of rejecting refugees if they have first stopped in what we deem to be a 'safe third country'. Under our international commitment to aid refugees, it nowhere suggests that because a person landed in some other country first they should be ineligible to come to Canada. This could conceivably result in refugees being sent back to the country they were fleeing - something that is expressly prohibited. This whole proposal creates a barrier to refugees and should be abandoned as unworthy of our nation.

Finally, overseas applicants should be provided with the same right of appeal as in-country applicants.

Chapter Eight. Building Confidence in the System

The proposal for an automated tracking system seems to condone a very heavy-handed interference in the lives of refugees and immigrants whose status is provisional.

Chapter Nine. Reviews: Simple Fair and Timely

Although the goal of efficiency is commendable, speed of process is not the most important aspect of our refugee system. There has to be recognition that we are dealing at times with terrified, traumatized people who may not be capable of jumping through administrative hoops on a narrow schedule. So giving someone three days to present themselves to the Protection Agency and ten days to make a claim are good guidelines but impractical and insensitive.

Further, we strongly recommend retaining an independent, quasi-judicial appeals system.

D. Summary
We believe that this report reinforces a mistaken notion that economic determinants are the most important criteria for evaluating the desirability of immigrants. We are concerned with an apparent bias against workers from developing nations, and we are opposed to any encouragement for employers to prey upon temporary foreign workers.

We are also worried that the proposed changes to refugee treatment will in fact exclude more legitimate claimants - particularly through the safe third country policy. We are concerned that the new system would be more bureaucratic and inflexible, and that the rights to appeal decisions would be compromised.

We strongly recommend a much larger, more comprehensive public consultation, and the abandonment of unrealistically short timelines for developing legislation.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Officers and Executive Council of the Alberta Federation of Labour,

Audrey Cormack
President