Citizenship and Immigration Committee on June 5th, 2023

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Yes, sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

It has been distributed.

Okay, Mr. Redekopp.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

This amendment reads as follows: Regarding new clause 3, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):

(g) prescribing the manner in which foreign credentials may be regarded as equivalent to Canadian credentials as per previously approved Acts of Parliament, in a manner that may act as a step towards gaining citizenship.

This is a critical part of the problems we're having in our country right now with newcomers to our country who are trained in a profession and are unable to actually work in that profession—for example, doctors, nurses, engineers and so on.

This is a perennial problem. We've all heard of the classic situation of a doctor driving a taxi when we have shortages of doctors in our country. We also have shortages of nurses, for example, yet we have many thousands of doctors and nurses who are not practising in their field because our system doesn't allow that.

One of the parts of that, one of the pieces of that puzzle, is the foreign credentials component, so what this amendment is doing is looking at the section of the act that gives the minister the ability to do certain things in terms of regulations. What I'm proposing through this amendment is to allow the minister to say what is an equivalent credential, so that if you have a certain credential from another country—for example, India—the minister can, through proper due diligence, designate that it is equivalent to a certain Canadian credential.

We think that's important, especially for the future. Whether this government is able to figure that out or not, I'm not sure, but potentially there might be a future government that might be different, and that government may want to do some of these things to improve the situation.

That's where this would be an opportunity for the minister to be able to designate equivalencies and therefore speed up the process and make it less expensive and less time-consuming for a newcomer to work in our country with the credentials they have.

That's what this is about. I would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.

We have amendment CPC-46 on the floor.

Seeing no debate, we will go to a vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

Mr. Redekopp, go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have amendment CPC-47, which is being distributed. I'll just pause.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. Redekopp, please go ahead.

[Brad Redekopp, Conservative, Saskatoon West, SK]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I will read amendment 47 on new clause 3.

That Bill S‐245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):

(h) overriding licensing boards under federal jurisdiction and provincial licensing boards with regards to foreign credentials, which include, but are not limited to, numerous fields such as medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, among others, to enable immigrants to practice their professions in Canada, which may serve as a step towards gaining citizenship.

Madam Chair, this is also a very significant issue in Canada right now. Newcomers to our country have skills. They have training. They have had, in many cases, years of experience in a certain field. When they come to our country, they're told that they can't practise their profession, whether it's as a doctor, nurse, engineer, lawyer or veterinarian—there are many examples.

I've spoken to many people who have literally decades of experience in certain professions, yet the process to get licensed in Canada is so onerous that, essentially, they have to start again—spend many thousands of dollars, take years of education, essentially repeating what they've already learned, not only through school but often through experience.

Certainly in Canada, we need to have standards. We need to make sure that people who come here to work in those jobs have the skills and education required. That goes without saying, but at the same time, we know there are a lot of cases in which people meet that standard, and they would meet that standard but there are gatekeepers in the way. There are licensing boards. There are other boards that restrict the adoption of people into their groups so that those people cannot practise.

What is so important, I think, is that we eliminate these gatekeepers and allow for co-operation among these groups in our country so that we take advantage of the tremendous pool of labour that is just there before us.

It seems somewhat obvious to me, given that most parts of the country would agree that we have a shortage of doctors, for example. We have many newcomers who have been trained as doctors, who may have years and even decades of experience as a doctor in another country, but because of the way the licensing boards in Canada have set things up, they are just not able to go through the process. Either they can't get in or the process is so onerous and time-consuming and expensive that it's just not something they're able to do.

Particularly if you're a little bit older in years and you've already gone through school and have practised as a doctor, for example, for 20 or 25 years, to be told that you need to start again, the same as a 19-year-old or 20-year-old student and go through five or six years of education again, it's not a very attractive thing for many of these people. I've talked to them, and they've shared that exact thing with me.

This amendment goes to the part where the minister is able to make regulations. It would allow the minister to, essentially, force licensing boards to adopt certain standards when it comes to credentials, because sometimes the credentials are where people get tripped up. It lists some of the areas that this would work in, like medicine, nursing, pharmacology, engineering, etc. It basically gives the minister the ability to go in and write regulations that will ease the transition of newcomers to our country into the field that they're trying to work in.

This is, I believe, something very important and something that needs to be done. It wouldn't necessarily be simple. There would have to be co-operation, but I have confidence in our ability to co-operate on things like this, particularly today, right now in our country, when we have a shortage of doctors, for example.

I'm quite confident that there would be a way to co-operate to make this work, for all levels of government and licensing boards to work together, but if the minister had a little more power in this, I think it would be helpful.

That's why this amendment is here. That's what I'm hoping for. I really hope my colleagues will support this amendment.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

We have amendment CPC-47 on the floor.

I'm seeing no debate. We will go to the vote on amendment CPC-47.

(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 4)

We will now proceed to new clause 3 in G-10.

Mr. El-Khoury, would you like to move G-10?

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to move amendment G-10. However, I want to move the updated version that I believe was sent to members recently.

I would like to read it in both languages.

For my friend Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, I will read the French version first.

Je propose que le projet de loi S‑245 soit modifié par adjonction, après la ligne 23, page 1, de ce qui suit:

Entrée en vigueur

Décret

3 La présente loi entre en vigueur à la date fixée par décret, mais au plus tard le cinq cent quarante-huitième jour suivant la date de sa sanction.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Mr. El-Khoury, wait one second.

Yes, go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm just carrying on. I want to get on the speakers list. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

I want to make sure everyone has their copy of the amendment.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

It was already sent, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. El-Khoury.

[Fayçal El-Khoury, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Amendment G-10 reads that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:

Coming into Force

Order in council

3 This Act comes into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council, but no later than the 548th day after the day on which this Act receives royal assent.

I would like to give some thoughts on it.

Madam Chair, this motion introduces a “coming into force” provision to set a future date when the bill will take effect, but no later than 18 months after royal assent. I think we can all understand that, with all the complexity around this bill, IRCC will need time to prepare for the changes. This will help assure an orderly implementation of operational readiness, systems changes and the development of supporting regulatory changes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Kwan, and then Mr. Perkins.

Go ahead, Ms. Kwan.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'll be supporting G-10 as a companion piece to the package here. I think these elements are important to indicate how we will see the package proceed, once—hopefully—it becomes law.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Could I ask the officials...? To me, this is an unusual clause—that the Governor in Council would make the choice about when it's proclaimed in law.

Could you tell me, first, what the effect of this being approved would be? What would the purpose of this be?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Ms. Girard.

[Nicole Girard]

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you for the question.

We had a similar provision for the legislative amendments implemented in 2009 to remedy lost Canadians, as well as the overhaul of citizenship legislation done in 2014-15. Without a provision like this, when Parliament finally passes legislation, it would mean it comes into force right away, and the department is expected to loyally implement it right away.

As I've previously testified, to implement a legislative initiative such as this one smoothly and to ensure we can process the citizenship applications of those benefiting from the bill, at a minimum, we need some IT changes put in place. Those generally take a year to get in place. We typically have to develop regulations, as well, to support smooth implementation. The regulatory process takes a year to 18 months. To do it within a year is considered very tight.

Alongside those critical changes to IT and the regulations, there is usually a whole host of other changes we need to do in parallel. We need to update our application forms and communications, and do our outreach to those who are benefiting. We need to update our policy guidelines, our training and all manner of things to get the program ready to deliver.

That is the purpose of having a “coming into force” provision.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Go ahead, Mr. Perkins.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

For the provision, you said one year would be tight. Eighteen months is enough. What happens if you're not ready after 18 months?

[Nicole Girard]

The department has fairly significant experience in undertaking the implementation preparations that are required for a legislative initiative such as this one. I can say, in my last 15 years of loyally implementing a number of legislative changes, we've always managed to do it within the timelines and under 18 months.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

Thank you, Ms. Girard.

Seeing no further debate, we will vote on G-10.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11; nays 0)

Ms. Kwan.