Evidence of meeting #45 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 changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
If somebody's making comments that are not substantial, are not factual, are not in the regulations--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
That is a point of debate. It is not a point of order.
I noticed that when people were speaking, everyone was relatively silent. I would ask that the same courtesy be given to Mr. Komarnicki. Now I have to give Mr. Komarnicki extra time, and we're going to eat into the next panel, so please restrain yourselves.
Go ahead, Mr. Komarnicki.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
Let me put it to you this way, so that you don't have to go through all of that: would you agree with me that legislation that would not have to consider every application in the order that it is received would be a benefit if you wanted to match occupations or skills with what the country needs?
Vice-President, Policy Development Branch, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce
Just as a point, proposed subsection 11(1) for us is more a case of a request for clarification as to what this means. Our understanding is that proposed subsection 11(1) refers to the fact that once your application has been processed, if you have met all the criteria as laid down in the act and as laid down by the application process, even if you are successful, proposed subsection 11(1) now says that you can actually be refused that visa, and we don't see the reason for that to be the case.
Please feel free to correct me if I have that wrong.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
If you had to consider every application, you would have the backlog as we now have it, so you need to be able to select from among the applications and to return others.
Vice-President, Policy Development Branch, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce
That's not proposed subsection 11(1). That's covered by the new instructions of proposed section 87.3.
Conservative
Ed Komarnicki Conservative Souris—Moose Mountain, SK
The fact of the matter is that the instruction the minister proposes to issue would give her the ability to select from among various applicants or categories of applicants. Is that something you would support?
Vice-President, Policy Development Branch, British Columbia Chamber of Commerce
Yes.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
I have to cut you off there, Mr. Komarnicki. Time has expired.
I want to thank witnesses for their testimony today. We go into consideration of our draft report tomorrow, and hopefully your comments will be taken into consideration as well.
Again, many thanks for coming today.
Liberal
Jim Karygiannis Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
Mr. Chair, did you say a “draft report” or a “draft preliminary report”?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
Draft preliminary, draft report, draft whatever--it's a draft. It's only a draft.
Liberal
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle
We'll try to get back on track, because we do have bells at 5:30 for votes, so pretty squarely at 5:30 we'll have to take off out of here.
Today I want to welcome Mr. Vikram Khurana, director, from the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada; Mr. Joseph Ben-Ami, president of the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies; and Elizabeth Lim, lawyer for the Lim Mangalji Immigration Law Group, from the Status Now! Campaign in Defense of Undocumented Immigrants. Welcome to all of you.
You have been told by the clerk that you have about seven minutes to make an opening statement, so in whatever order you want to do it, please feel free to go ahead.
Elizabeth Lim Lawyer, Lim Mangalji Law Group, Status Now! - Campaign in Defense of Undocumented Immigrants
My name is Elizabeth Lim. I'm an immigration lawyer from the law firm of Lim Mangalji. I am speaking today on behalf of the Status Now! campaign, a group of community organizations and agencies who have come together to speak on the plight of immigrants, refugees, and non-status persons in this country.
On April 28 the minister made it clear in her address to the Standing Committee on Finance that the main purpose of the immigration amendments contained in Bill C-50 was to “keep businesses open for business”. With all due respect, we submit that this does not make common sense. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business we must give officers the power to be above the law, to refuse to issue a visa even if an individual meets all of the requirements under the law. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business officers should be given the power not to look at the merits of an overseas humanitarian and compassionate application. It does not make sense that to keep businesses open for business the minister should be given the power to choose, without parliamentary scrutiny and within any category she pleases, the persons who can come into this country.
Businesses already have the power to apply for workers to come into this country through work permits. These work permits can be issued almost instantly at the border, or through pre-approvals at visa posts. They can be processed within a few days or weeks. There are currently no limitations on the number of work permits issued by Canada each year. The backlog and the delays in the system, whether at Service Canada or CIC, can be easily resolved by hiring more officers to process these applications.
There are, however, many problems with businesses retaining workers that this bill does not address in any fashion. Business cannot by law retain low-skilled workers who are given only non-renewable, two-year work permits, and who are left with very few avenues of gaining permanent residence. These workers are told that they are not allowed to bring their families to Canada and should not expect to get permanent residence. In fact, many workers are turned away at the visa posts at great loss to their employers in Canada, simply because they are from an immigrant-producing country or do not have enough financial ties to their country of origin. Furthermore, businesses cannot retain undocumented workers, even though they may be key employees or even the owners of the company. They are often sent away from this country because they made a failed refugee claim and were not provided with a viable way of gaining immigrant status.
These issues form the crux of the problems experienced by business throughout Canada, from Newfoundland to B.C. Yet this bill does not in any way address these problems.
The minister has also said that this bill is necessary to address the backlog. There is no question that the backlog for permanent residence applications is a serious issue. The question is, how do we resolve this problem? Do we resolve this problem, as the minister suggests, by returning or throwing away applications of applicants who are qualified under the law, who relied on our laws when they applied, who have waited for years to have their applications processed, and who have spent thousands of dollars and countless hours preparing their applications? Or does it make more sense to help resolve the backlog by raising our targets, which are still at 1997 levels, to allow more persons to immigrate to Canada each year? We need their skills and presence in this country to help resolve our population decline and labour shortages as well as to reunite their families.
Ultimately, you must ask yourself: is it better to concentrate the power to decide who can enter and remain in this country in the hands of one person by attaching it to a budget bill and forcing its passage as a confidence vote, or would it be better to resolve this problem as a country together?
We submit that such drastic amendments to the immigration laws of this country to decide how people can immigrate and who can immigrate to this country should only come after extensive consultations with community groups, and when votes on this issue are not tied to an election. And as the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration with expertise in this area, you should advise the finance committee to vote against this bill.
Ultimately, immigration is not just about keeping businesses open for business; it's about community members and future citizens of this country. It's about my husband, who I had to sponsor through spousal sponsorship on a humanitarian basis, because at that time--ten years ago--under the occupation-based selection criteria, Immigration Canada said we did not need Canadian-trained physicians in this country.
It's about many of your ancestors who may have been fishermen, lumberjacks, factory workers, or construction workers, who did not have post-secondary degrees. They came to this country, worked hard every day of their lives, and dreamed that their children and descendants would grow up to be members of Parliament. Many of your ancestors would not be able to immigrate to this country based on our current laws, and under these immigration amendments, every one of your ancestors could be refused.
Immigration is not just about keeping businesses open for business. It's not just about politics. It's about keeping faith with our own immigrant pasts and making sure that our laws are fair, transparent, practical, and consistent with Canada's humanitarian tradition for the future of our country.
Thank you.
