Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 14th, 2008

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Go ahead, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I want to thank you.

However, I think Mrs. Chow should put questions and not summarize what the Liberals are or are not going to be doing.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

That's not a point of order.

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

I'm out of time, so if anyone wants to respond to it, please go ahead.

[Pierre Gauthier]

I think it would be much wiser if the preparatory work to revise such an important act, which affects the lives and possibly the social and financial orientation of our country, were prepared in sober consideration, and the best place for the expertise to be applied and to be gathered is in a committee such as this. Then the minister and the government could formulate an act that would garner support, rather than confuse and scare people that one grain of pepper is necessary to put into the budget sandwich to make a solution to an emergency or a crisis that none of us are aware of, except perhaps the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Do you want to comment?

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

Any further comments?

[Shafiq Hudda]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In response to the honourable member Chow's point, yes, I think the groups throughout Canada on a regional level, on a geographically diverse level, need to be consulted before something of this dramatic nature even comes before the board.

I appreciate the opportunity we have to go before you. As you deliberate, I request very humbly and very sincerely that every member who is involved in drafting this legislation please look in your heart, please vote with your conscience, and think about what effects you will have, all of you sitting here, on the future of Canada and the future of the people who come to Canada and the future of people who may not be able to come to Canada.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

You're next, Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not going to direct any questions. I'll make some comments in my closing time.

I appreciate the strongly held views of the various witnesses, so I'm not about to challenge those views.

It seems to me that, looking at the legislation, refugee protection will not be affected by this legislation. The minister indicated yesterday, with respect to family reunification, that in the case of family-class applications Canada plans to accept approximately 70,000 applicants in 2008.

With respect to input in relation to the instruction, she said:

Prior to issuing the instructions, the government will consult with the provinces and territories, industry and government departments to shape the approach. And in consulting with the provinces, we will seek assurance that when say they need immigrants with certain skills, those immigrants can actually get their credentials recognized so that they can work.

And finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, ensuring government-wide accountability for the decisions taken. And, to be completely transparent, the instructions would be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and be reported on in CIC's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.

The legislation indicates that, generally, the guidelines are that they must be something that would best support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada.

And we heard from the CFIB, I think it was, that full-time employment plans of the next 12 months would show there would be an increase of 30%; that shortage of qualified labour was one of the top three--either one, two, or three--in the priorities; that the long-term vacancy rate was increasing for the percentage of jobs vacant for more than four months; that in a survey, 68% thought it would be harder rather than easier to find employees in the future; and that some would ignore new business opportunities, up to 38%, because of the difficulty in getting skilled labour or labour they would require. And in the economic class, the skilled worker class, 61% brought their spouses and dependants with them.

There are those who believe there needs to be a change in our system to ensure we can meet those needs, and they're of the view that Bill C-50 accomplishes that. I know the chair raised yesterday whether any supported Bill C-50, and certainly a number of groups have said so. I know the Canada India Foundation, for instance, says “Bill C-50 is good for Canada and good for Canadian employers. By choosing to prioritize skilled labourers, while protecting family class...”—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I was wondering if the parliamentary secretary can define Canada India.... What was the name of the—

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

Canada India Foundation.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Is that the one the Prime Minister went to?

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

While protecting family class immigrants and refugees, the minister is striking the right balance, and I appreciate there are different points of view.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Studies is backing changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would give officials the authority to process immigration applications made under the skilled worker class according to Canada's labour market needs.

FETCO, which is the Federally Regulated Employers—Transportation and Communications organization, indicates they welcome the opportunity to write and support the legislative changes included in the Budget Implementation Act, Bill C-50, and they represent organizations like Air Canada, Archer Daniels Midland—

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

A point of order.

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think if the chair will take a look at Marleau and Montpetit, page 529, the committee is required “to guard against the inefficient use of the time of the House”. I would put to the chair, for his judgment, that the member is being repetitive and he's reading verbatim out of notes that were already submitted to this committee.

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

No, they haven't yet been--

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

He's being repetitive and wasting the committee's time, so I would ask the chair to cut his time off.

[Wajid Khan, Conservative, Mississauga—Streetsville, ON]

These are the organizations that have been insulted.

[Nina Grewal]

This is his time and he can use it any way he likes.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

That is a point of order. I am sure he has taken into consideration the point just made.

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

We made a rule yesterday; it doesn't go against my time.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Maurizio Bevilacqua]

No, the clock has been stopped. But it will begin now.

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

Bell Canada, Canada Post Corporation, Canadian Airports Council, Canadian Association of Broadcasters, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, Canadian Trucking Alliance, Iron Ore Company of Canada, Maritime Employers Association of Canada, NavCanada, Purolator Courier Ltd., SaskTel, Telus, Western Grain Elevator Association, VIA Rail Canada.

Then we have the Canadian Trucking Alliance indicating:

The concept of Ministerial Instructions should allow the Minister, subject to appropriate input and safeguards, to designate priority occupations that do not currently merit consideration as skilled workers. This should increase the capacity of the immigration system to attract immigrants to meet critical skill shortages in all parts of the economy.

Then we have the Canadian Pacific Railway that indicates “...we support your current efforts in this regard”.

We have ITAC saying,

...our primary means of product is the knowledge and ingenuity of 600,000 Canadians who fuel our businesses. Not surprisingly, the availability of highly qualified talent that our industry requires is a persistent strategic concern for the members of ITAC.

Therefore, I am writing to applaud the changes you are making to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Then we have the Railway Association of Canada saying,

On behalf of the Railway Association of Canada, I am writing in support of the government's efforts to revise Canada's immigration policy through Bill C-50 currently under consideration by the House of Commons.

Certainly I'm prepared to table those, simply to indicate that there is a difference of opinion among various people. Ultimately, it boils down to a policy decision, and ultimately, as I think one of the witnesses may have said, the government will set the policy and it is obviously accountable to the people. The minister would be accountable to the cabinet and to the government, and the government is accountable to the people, so they need to make those kinds of decisions.

As mentioned before, the legislation is meant to be charter-compliant, at the stage where the legislation is considered, also at the point of instruction, and finally, in the exercise of the instruction as well.

I appreciate there are strongly held views and I appreciate that those views can be legitimately held and there can be genuine disagreement as to the approach. My sense is that what is fairly common is the system that we now have is not working. It is broken and it needs to be changed, it needs to be more responsive, it needs to be more reflective. Whether this bill will do this or not, time will tell, and whether it goes through the House or not, time will tell, because in a democracy--and this is a democracy--every member of Parliament will have to be able to stand up on his own two feet and with his conscience either oppose it or support it. That 's the way our democracy works.

If the majority who are representing their constituents feel this bill is bad and genuinely feel so, they can go and--