That wasn't my question.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was worker.
Evidence of meeting #18 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was worker.
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
I misunderstood. I'm sorry.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
My question is this. That program would only limit those who have degrees, who have very high skill levels. There are four categories, A, B, C, and D. If you are D, if you're general labour—i.e., you're a farm worker, or you work at a McDonald's in Alberta, in Fort McMurray—you will never get a chance to be able to come in or apply for landed immigrant status. Is that fair?
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
I would have all skill levels have an equal chance of getting in. So I would say it's unfair as it's set up. But I would do it with a proviso, which is one for one. If you let in one more person in this experience class, then you remove one person out of the permanent class.
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
Why? You have to have some sense of a balanced program here. You can't suddenly raise it from x. Let me just say that the country can only absorb so many people in the short run, in the economy.
2:15 p.m.
NDP
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
A considerably larger number than we have now.
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
It depends on who is coming in and where they're going. I'll just say a considerably larger number--I'm a politician.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
You're very good at timing, Ms. Chow. You only had ten seconds left.
Thank you.
Mr. Komarnicki.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Thank you very much.
Obviously we can talk about the numbers, and that's something that would need to be settled. My understanding is that you're saying there's sort of an optimum absorption number, and that's where you should start from and work from that point. Is that correct?
If I were to just go back to the undocumented workers, I think perhaps one or both of you mentioned that those individuals are here primarily because, as you indicate, there isn't some legitimate way for them to come in to meet some of the needs the country is facing on the economic stream. Would it be fair to say that what I'm hearing from you is that you're looking for some reform or change to the way we do things with immigration, to better align it with what the needs of the country might be economically, and of course apportioning that appropriately between the economy, family reunification, and our obligations with respect to refugees? I guess I'm asking you whether you are looking for us to come up with new means and ways to accommodate what the country needs. I'll ask you first, and then you can pass it on.
2:15 p.m.
Prof. Don DeVoretz
For better or worse, I think the experience class, which I've promoted for the last 30 years, is one way of melding the two together. If you don't know precisely the exact number, like 386,441, you'll get some feeling from the labour market if you need more or less if you use the temporary workers program. I think the experience class, if run right, does the trick.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
2:15 p.m.
Director, British Columbia Office, Canada West Foundation
I definitely agree that we do need, we are going to need, and we can't absorb more immigrants than we're getting now. I think we often forget that it isn't just our choice that we are competing with the entire world for capable immigrants, whether they have the training and the skills we need or whether they're capable of acquiring that once they get here.
I had the privilege of working for Parliament, for the then-Minister of Immigration, to write a report about 10 years ago called Not just numbers/Au-delà des chiffres, which looked very comprehensively at the entire immigration program, including refugees. We looked at the idea of attracting a class of people we called the new pioneers, people who did not necessarily have a pile of credentials that would give them points under today's system, but who did have the set of hard and soft skills—and the soft skills are harder to measure—that they could be the new pioneers and could develop and contribute to Canada as previous generations did.
2:15 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
I'll just follow up from that, and I'll come back to Mr. Collacott. You said there is some competition for the types of people we might want to attract--that's between countries--and certainly, as you know, our system has had significant backlogs, great delays, and you would like to see some change in that to make it more competitive.
2:20 p.m.
Director, British Columbia Office, Canada West Foundation
I have met some very excellent people in Europe, in Australia, in many other countries who, when they discover I'm from Canada, say, yes, I applied to come to Canada, but the United States responded first, or Australia responded first, or Britain responded first, so I went there.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
So we need to get with it and become competitive, is what you're generally saying.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In terms of the temporary reform worker, I think I hear Mr. Collacott saying that it needs to be targeted and perhaps be more specific, and we need to be ever mindful of ensuring that those who do come in have certain protective rights, just as you mentioned under the nanny case where there are certain provisions. Is that where you're coming from?
March 31st, 2008 / 2:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
That's certainly an element. I think people should be protected if they're coming in as temporary foreign workers.
I would like to comment, if I may, though, on a couple of points that have been made. Roslyn Kunin just said we need more immigrants. The fact is that immigrants haven't been doing very well on average. Some have been doing terrifically, like Mr. Karygiannis and Mr. Telegdi. But in fact their economic performance has been much lower than earlier immigrants or Canadians--higher poverty levels--so I think that whole issue has to be looked at.
The question that Ms. Chow raised--is it fair just to take highly educated people?--is an interesting one because our immigration policies aren't based on fairness. Humanitarian programs--refugees--are based on humanitarian considerations, but our programs should be based on what's good for Canadians. For instance, on tradespeople, we do need some right now, but we may not need so many once the current construction cycles are over. So I think we have to look at that carefully. We may find--
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Excuse me. Perhaps you could close quickly because my time is running out and I have another question.
2:20 p.m.
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
We may find we need some of them on a permanent basis, but I think we should be more cautious in that sense.
2:20 p.m.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
In taking off from that, it would seem we have had the Canadian experience class, which you referred to, Mr. DeVoretz, working in Canada for a certain period of time. I'm assuming they're able to become acclimatized and used to the circumstances under which we become part of the community. Would they not be a logical type of person to not only be here but to also bring their family here and settle perhaps in various communities, as the needs might present themselves across the country?