Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

All right, thank you.

I believe that's quite clear. I continue to ask it in the hope that one day someone may answer yes, but unfortunately the government conducted no consultation on the subject. And that shows.

The bill under study is almost unanimously criticized by everyone following this issue. I get the impression that even the government realizes this makes no sense. I've already seen this parliamentary secretary defend files with greater conviction. We're in a political situation—and that's very unfortunate—in which the government doesn't want to back down, when it knows very well that won't resolve the issue. I won't ask you to comment on that because that's more my personal political analysis.

I want to talk about the compassionate component of the amendments under consideration. Previously, when a person filed an application for permanent residency on compassionate grounds, the officer had to evaluate that application. According to the amendment, the officer may examine the application. It would no longer be mandatory, and that's of particular concern to me. Having handled a number of problem immigration cases, I know that this compassionate application procedure is used by a number of refugee claimants who have been refused by board members.

If a person appears before a board member who rejects 98% of applications on which he is required to rule, that person will feel unfairly treated, which is legitimate. As there is no refugee appeal division, that person will apply for permanent residency on compassionate grounds in a second attempt to come and settle in Canada.

If the government closes that door, don't you fear we will lose another opportunity to meet our international obligation to help the people who need it?

[Hassan Yussuff]

I think you're right in your assessment. Our assessment is exactly the same, as the proposed changes certainly make us worried that the humanitarian provisions the minister currently has in her authority will be very much diminished under these proposed amendments. That's worrying, because I think that both as a government and a policy initiative, you need to have those elements there. Indeed, we write to the government quite frequently for it to look at an applicant who has been refused, so that the person can be considered under humanitarian considerations to stay in the country.

And more problematic is the wording whether the minister “may” or “shall”...which I think raises serious questions whether or not it was deliberate on their part to use that particular wording, so they can essentially get rid of that, because I do understand that when humanitarian applications go to the minister, this certainly puts some pressure on the minister to exercise his or her authority. If you remove it in the legislation, it certainly shifts the burden; a minister doesn't have that responsibility and can no longer intervene. So the government doesn't have to respond to the lobbying and the political pressures that are there.

So we're seriously concerned. I think many of the people who have been granted the opportunity to remain in the country under humanitarian considerations have become good citizens and have proved the worthiness of that section of the law. So I think there are serious grounds for us to be worried about what the implications might be at the end of the day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Karl Flecker]

Can I add one thing on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, go ahead.

[Karl Flecker]

It is important to pick up on what you're saying about the international reputation, the fairness in the use of humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and the notion that this process is going to streamline.

First, with respect to the suggestion that folks in the economic class who don't get in will use the H and C process, the Canadian Council for Refugees has pointed out that they'd be pretty surprised if people actually did that. It's an expensive and uncertain process, so you have to wonder about why it's being played that way.

Second, with respect to the technical briefing stating that the intent is streamlining and greater responsiveness, the same technicians acknowledged that we now have more than one system. We have more than two systems. We actually have a number of systems that are going to be operating simultaneously. We have the point system. We have the new Canadian-experience class system. We have the ever-increasing temporary foreign worker process. If this passes, we would have the ministerial instructions process system. And we would have the humanitarian and compassionate system. All of this would be funded with a $22 million envelope for the first two years, scheduled to climb to $37 million by the third year. Interestingly, Carol Goar points out that one visa officer overseas costs between $900,000 and $1 million. Just play out those numbers and ask yourself if you see any streamlining in that formula.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Komarnicki.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have just a couple of remarks. Listening to questioning, past experience shows me there isn't much that my learned friend from Kitchener—Waterloo likes about anything that's proposed.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I'm voting against it.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

However, Mr. Bevilacqua asked if there was anyone supporting Bill C-50. As far as I know, the Liberal opposition has been supporting it thus far, and I hope this continues.

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

It has already passed second reading.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

There are two obvious things. Mr. Yussuff, did I understand you correctly when you said our birth rate will be insufficient to match our labour market needs? Is that correct?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Yes.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You were not particularly happy with the temporary foreign worker program. You would sooner see the skilled or lesser-skilled people come through a regularized permanent residence process under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[Hassan Yussuff]

That's true.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

You would like to see that happen, I gather, so that the person applying to come into the country would get a job and stay here on a regular or permanent basis.

[Hassan Yussuff]

Yes, that is the way to build our country and our economy.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Would you agree with me that having a job on arrival would be helpful in integrating into our society?

[Hassan Yussuff]

Yes and no. Not everybody who has come here as an immigrant has had a job. There was no promise of a job.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

That's not my question. Maybe I'll take a step back. Would you agree with me that having people with a particular skill employed in a job that does not make use of that skill, such as driving a cab, is not the way to match things up? Would you agree with that?

[Hassan Yussuff]

If we bring people as engineers, we should try to incorporate them so that they can work in their field.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Would it make sense to bring in an engineer when you knew that you had a position waiting for him when he got here?

[Hassan Yussuff]

That would seem to make sense.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Would it make sense not only to allow for the engineer to have a job, but also to provide an open work permit to the spouse and the children?

[Hassan Yussuff]

These are all hypothetical.