Evidence of meeting #129 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was study.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I will continue on, “and the global compact on refugees; that the study examine the degree to which Canada was consulted; that the study also determine how the compact will affect Canada, including but not limited to potential impacts on the immigration levels, resettlement cost supports, potential cost impacts on social programs, such as social welfare systems, affordable housing stock, regional homeless shelters and food banks; sovereignty on decision-making regarding immigration policy; that department officials”—and the minister?
4:15 p.m.
A voice
No.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
You do not want the minister to be in attendance.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
I will continue, “that the relevant minister be in attendance for at least one meeting; that this study consist of no fewer than four meetings; that the study be completed prior to Canada making a final decision to ratify either compact; that the committee provide an interim report on this aspect of the study to the House; and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the government table a comprehensive response to the interim report.”
4:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
The only thing I'd change is the second and last use of the word "study" to maybe “topic” or “issue” because we use the word study, but I think it's the topic within the big study. We're not going to do an interim report. We're going to do an interim report just on this topic.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
It is the same thing.
I think we understand that what we're doing is a small s study.
We have a revised motion on the floor, which I believe is in order because it does relate to our current study under way.
I'm looking at Ms. Kwan.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
I wouldn't dare to interrupt this delightful debate, so I pass.
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
Then we'll vote.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Good.
I know that was an unusual procedure, but my goal was to get moving on this so that we can get our work done.
Now we go to our witnesses.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
A voice
No.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
4:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
You do have seven minutes, but you may generously give some of that to your colleagues.
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It pays to know the rules, doesn't it?
Going back to the topic at hand, I am very interested with regard to the temporary foreign worker program, writ large. I think a lot of Canadians don't understand that the TFW program is broken down into different silos. There are high-skilled workers, low-skilled workers, and workers under the seasonal agricultural program. I find it's one of the biggest topics that I hear about in my work as a shadow minister. I find the term “temporary foreign worker” pejorative in nature. I think of the witness testimony here. In certain areas of the country, we are relying on this type of work, and I think it's incumbent upon us in this committee to understand why.
One of the potential changes that I've rolled out as an official policy from my party is that we would seek to completely revamp the program to do the following: We would make it less onerous on employers who require labour, by having better labour market data and by better tying the entry to that. To the testimony that was given here, we also recognize that in certain areas entire industries and regions are relying on this work, so rather than just looking at it year over year, if the labour market data shows this, then we should be trying to offer a path to entry over time.
One of the concerns that I hear from a lot of Canadians is about ensuring that self-sufficiency and integration are key aspects of Canadian immigration policy. I think there's a lot of perception that we are offering paths to entry for people who are relying on Canada's social programs.
Dr. Bélanger, would you be amendable to looking at a path to entry in a revamped TFW program where that is actually tied to a record of employment over a set period of time? For example, let's say you have worked for three out of four years, and you have demonstrated that you have been employed in Canada and have not been a drain on the social assistance program. That would be a path to entry.
I'd like your comment on that.
4:20 p.m.
Prof. Danièle Bélanger
Do you mean after people acquire permanent residence or before?
4:20 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
What I'm trying to do is...and I mean, we would need to rethink resettlement services in rural communities and so on. Basically, it's a matter of saying that if they are coming here year after year to pick fruit, there's probably a need for that over time. However, the path to residency should be attached to proven employment. I think where Canadians are finding difficulty with our immigration policy right now is that there's a perception that low-skilled workers are entering the country, either through our humanitarian immigration system or through this program, and then becoming a drain on the social welfare system in Canada.
I'm just trying to eliminate that as a narrative, and offering that as an incentive for people to stay employed in Canada after they've entered the country as a low-skilled worker.
