Finance Committee on May 27th, 2008

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'll listen to the point of order, but we'll have some officials come to the table.

Go ahead.

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

I'm not meaning to be rude here, but if the honourable member had attended the briefing sessions that were provided--two different briefing sessions--this question would have been answered at that time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That's true, but it's--

[Ted Menzies, Conservative, Macleod, AB]

It would have taken less of all of our time here today. These questions have been answered. There was ample opportunity for every member of the House of Commons to attend those briefings.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

That is true. It's not a point of order. We'll listen to--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I have a point of privilege.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

No, I'm sorry--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I just want--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

No, I'm sorry. We'll hear the explanation very quickly and then we'll move on.

Go ahead.

[Rosaline Frith, Director General, Canada Student Loans Program, Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada]

I believe that in essence what the budget and this act will do is...the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation will no longer exist after January 5, 2010. In August, or thereabouts, of 2009, a new grant will come into effect. That grant will be funded up to $350 million, and growing over time, so that four years after 2009, in 2013, the grant will exceed the current amount of non-repayable assistance that is provided to students across Canada. The new grant will go to about 245,000 students, 100,000 more students than are currently receiving non-repayable assistance through the current scholarship bursaries that are given out.

The new grant will be provided to students from lower-income families at a higher amount than those from middle-income families, because they are more in need of assistance. It will be given out over a monthly allocation to make sure they know how much they will receive in a predictable fashion throughout their period of study. This means the previous grants being offered by the federal government, which were only offered to first-year students attending their first year of college or university, will now apply throughout every year of study, so they're getting more money over more time and in a more predictable fashion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough. Good.

Shall the clause carry?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Are we on clause 101?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

On 101.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

We are in favour of clause 101.

(Clause 101 agreed to)

(Clauses 102 to 115 inclusive agreed to on division)

(On clause 116)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have an amendment. Do you all have the amendment for clause 116? I don't see anybody saying they don't have it, so the mover of that amendment is free to introduce it and speak to it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak in favour of this motion for several reasons. In 2002, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, with the chair, Mr. Joe Fontana, produced two reports. Both of the reports changed the point system fundamentally. It used to be that if you had certain kinds of skills, you would be able to get a certain number of points.

In 2002 the point system was changed in a way such that it would be under a human capital model. What is a “human capital model”? It is a model in which, if you have a certain degree or quite a few degrees, you would get a large number of points. If you speak English and French, you would also get a good number of points. What happens, then, is that you have a lot of people qualifying in skills that are not necessarily completely relevant to Canada.

On the one hand, immigrants feel they have been cheated. They come here and they are not able to find the kinds of work for which they have been trained. On the other hand, those who have skills, such as carpenters, chefs, and others, do not have enough points to come into Canada--perhaps because they are not 100% fluent in English or French--but they have the skills that Canada needs.

The Australian model is very, very clear on the point system. It does not give the minister the power to actually say yes or to determine a whole category of people, and it removes the entire arbitrariness from the immigration section. It is very objective.

The reason why the motion is in front of you is to change the word “may” and replace it with the word “shall”. We have heard from many lawyers and immigrant groups who said that if you make this change from “shall” to “may”, it will have a very negative impact on a lot of the applications. For example, a student who is 100% qualified for a visa--right now there's no backlog of student visas--could apply and follow all the regulations, but may not receive a visa. That is completely unfair.

This change in clause 116 will have an impact on visitor visas, student visas, temporary foreign workers. None of them is in a backlog situation, so if the government is worried about a backlog, there's absolutely no reason why you would need to have this type of fundamental change in the Immigration Act. That is why I am moving this change.

If it is approved, it would then read:

A foreign national must, before entering Canada, apply to an officer for a visa or for any other document required by regulations. The visa or document shall be issued if, following an examination, the officer is satisfied that the foreign national is not inadmissible and meets the requirements of this Act.

It changes the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to the way it was before. The NDP does not believe that ministers or all visa officers should have this kind of power if someone is completely qualified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much. I think it's very clear you're changing the one word “may” to “shall”.

Shall this clause carry?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Can I have a recorded vote on that, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay. Let's do a recorded vote on the amendment, and then we'll go to the main clause.

(Amendment negatived: nays 4; yeas 3; abstentions 3)

(Clause 116 agreed to: yeas 4; nays 3; abstentions 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Can we apply that to clauses 117 through 119?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Clause 117 actually has a different.... I have an amendment on clause 117.

[Rob Merrifield, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Okay. I see it as being very similar, but go ahead and speak to it.

(On clause 117)

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Actually, it isn't. This one actually deals with humanitarian and compassionate grounds. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been saying that all of these changes will not impact on families. But that is not the case if clause 117 is approved.

Let me give you give two examples. If this child is a refugee, under the present immigration law she cannot sponsor her father, who is in a refugee camp, to come to Canada. This child cannot sponsor a mother, who may be in a very precarious situation. That's because the child is not of age. So the only way this child's case would be considered is through humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I'm talking about people who are outside of Canada.

If this passes without my amendment changing “may” to “shall”, this child could submit an application under humanitarian grounds to bring her parents to Canada and the visa officers would not have to consider her application. I have seen a case like this at the Parkdale legal clinic, where a refugee child from Kenya is trying to bring her father to Canada. Because the rules haven't changed yet, her application is being considered right now. It has to be--shall be--examined by the visa officers. If this change goes through, her situation will be completely up in the air. She may not be able to bring her parents to Canada. That's one example.

I have another example, speaking about families and humanitarian and compassionate grounds. I received a letter about a man and a wife who came to Canada from China. They did not speak much English, so they hired an immigration consultant--this was in 2001-02. When they put in the application, they did not have a daughter. They were approved and came to Canada. In the meantime, because of the wait, the family ended up having a daughter. Because he was not able to tell the immigration officer about her when they were coming to Canada, they ended up coming to Canada and leaving their three-year-old kid back home. He is trying to bring her in on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. He does not fit under the regulations right now because he did not manage to declare her when he came over. He should have, but he didn't. He made a mistake, not because he wanted to cheat, but because the immigration consultant was irresponsible.

As a result, if the “may” isn't replaced by “shall”, the humanitarian and compassionate grounds of this case may not be considered again. That is why this change is really important. If Canada is built on a reputation, the cornerstone of which is that we are a humanitarian and compassionate country, all these applications have to be considered. That is why the amendment has to be “shall” rather than “may”.

So it would read as follows:

The Minister shall, upon request of a foreign national in Canada who is inadmissible or who does not meet the requirements of this Act

--for which, by the way, I gave two examples--

and shall, on the Minister's own initiative or on request of a foreign national outside Canada, examine the circumstances concerning the foreign national and may grant the foreign national permanent resident status or an exemption from any applicable criteria or obligation of this Act if the Minister is of the opinion that it is justified by humanitarian and compassionate considerations relating to them--

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Your time has gone. I think we have the gist.

Thank you very much. We will now have a motion on the amendment.