CIMM Committee Report

Submitted to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration
June 22, 2006

This dissenting report is made in response to the motion as presented by the NDP Member for Burnaby–Douglas and passed as amended by this committee on the 21st day of June, 2006. The motion as passed results in the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration adopting the following statement as a report to the House which reads as follows:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Committee recommends that the government place an immediate moratorium on deportations of all undocumented workers and their families who pass security and criminality checks while a new immigration policy is put in place.

There was no consensus of the members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration and this dissenting report is filed to reflect my dissent to the report as concurred with by the Members noted.

At the present time there is a growing concern with respect to the plight of undocumented workers all across Canada. This is a matter with no easy solutions and a number of competing concerns, all of which warrant careful consideration and study. There is no question this government and the Conservative Party of Canada recognize that a thoughtful and measured response is required before policy can be implemented to fully address this situation.

The proposal of a moratorium on deportations is something which unquestionably warrants study by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Canadians look to the representatives they elect to address matters like this. It is through their Members of Parliament that they may participate in the development of policy options and recommendations to their government. Those options and recommendations would also undoubtedly benefit from the input and wisdom of committee members, particularly those who have been thinking about the problem for 13 years as caucus members of the former Liberal government. It is also through the unique ability of parliamentary committees to call witnesses, receive submissions and engage in public consultation that stakeholders and the broader public can contribute directly and transparently to improving outcomes for those affected.

Yet, troublingly, there has been absolutely no effort on the part of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration of the 39th Parliament to hear from even a single witness. No representative of any of the stakeholders, interested groups or the public has been afforded an opportunity to give evidence or make any presentation to the committee. The members of all three Opposition Parties have chosen instead to abrogate their public duty and curtail the public input. It is perhaps a telling extension of the fact that not one of them or their Parties made halting deportations or regularizing illegal workers a platform commitment in the past election campaign.

The proposal of a moratorium ought to be considered in light of Canada’s immigration policies, generally. We believe Canada’s immigration policies are regarded as responsible, logical, humane and democratic. They have been built on principles of fairness and respect for the rule of law. Immigration is an important economic, social and cultural engine for Canada. Several avenues have been created to welcome newcomers to Canada while allowing government to attain Parliament’s and its own objectives with respect to immigration.

The Skilled Worker Program selects immigrants with flexible skills on the basis of their ability to become economically established in Canada. The selection criteria places more emphasis on knowledge of Canada’s official languages, level of education and previous work experience, which are primary indicators for the long-term success of newcomers and their integration into the Canadian labour market and society. Points are also awarded to foreign nationals who have previous work experience in Canada as temporary workers. As well, those who have arranged permanent employment are allocated additional points. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is exploring ways to make our immigration program more responsive to labour market needs.

The Canadian immigration system also responds to localized or industry-specific labour shortages through the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) Program and through Provincial Nominee Programs (PNP). PNPs allow participating provinces to nominate permanent immigrants based on their own particular needs, whether workers are recruited from abroad or already in Canada as temporary residents, without the requirement for labour market opinion. Co-managed by CIC and Human Resources and Social Development Canada (HRSDC), the TFW Program is largely employer driven and responsive to offers of employment from Canadian employers. Recruitment into the program is geared towards individuals who want to work in Canada, but may not be planning to make this country their permanent home.

In high-demand industries, CIC continues to work with stakeholders to create special programs within the TFW. The Construction Recruitment External Workers Services (CREWS), for example, was created along with stakeholders in the construction industry to manage, control and allow for the efficient processing by HRSDC and CIC of applications for the entry of temporary foreign construction workers. The Minister is interested in receiving feedback from those affected by it on how it could be improved. Similar programs exist for the agricultural sector and for the oil sands industry.

A moratorium on removals must also be considered in light of already existing policies that allow for foreign nations facing removal to remain in Canada. Foreign nationals experiencing exceptional circumstances in Canada may apply for humanitarian and compassionate consideration (H&C). Applicants are required to prove that hardship is unusual, excessive, or undeserved, and the result of circumstances beyond the applicant's control. CIC officers accord all applicants the opportunity to have their applications assessed fairly.

Our government is continually reviewing the economic climate in Canada and identifying ways in which immigration can be more responsive to labour market needs while respecting the social and security-related requirements of immigration. We believe Members of the Standing Committee have a responsibility to keep in mind the importance of maintaining the integrity of the immigration system. Fairness to those seeking to come to Canada legally is imperative.

There are many who are of the view that any regularization initiative for foreign nationals who have illegally remained in Canada is unfair to the hundreds of thousands who have applied for immigration through legal channels and have waited patiently for processing. There are some who have expressed concern about the “draw” factor of a moratorium on deportations — that is, the potential for others to come to Canada and remain without legal status. Some have raised that an effective removals program is essential to the integrity of Canada’s immigration system. We wonder what the effect will be on those without status when some in their community or in their situation do not pass the criminality and security checks referred to in the Motion and whether they will be driven further underground. All of these questions merit the advice and evidence of those with expertise. The Opposition, however, would rather not see them asked or take part in answering them.

The Conservative government has also shown its commitment to fairness and a refreshing willingness to listen to those who have views toward solutions for problems Canadians and those wanting to come to Canada have found with the policies of former governments. We are proud to be part of a government that recently admitted over 800 refugees fleeing Myanmar, gave international students legitimate opportunities to come to Canada and gain valuable work experience through an Off-Campus Work Permit Program, created new measures for victims of human trafficking, cut in half the Right of Permanent Residence Fees, and ended the decade-long funding freeze for settlement and adaptation services with a budget increase of $307 million.

As Members of Parliament, as members of the Conservative caucus, we consulted and listened to stakeholders who came before Parliamentary committees to develop these policies and programs that are improving the outcomes of immigrants, refugees and new Canadians. For matters like a moratorium on deportations and the broader issues affecting those without status, we believe it is equally important to successful outcomes for stakeholders to contribute and be heard.

We do not believe that this Motion was brought in accordance with the letter or the spirit of the Standing Orders of Parliament. The Standing Orders are intended and do facilitate Parliament to discuss issues of importance in Canada. The motion of the Member for Burnaby–Douglas was brought before the committee, as a report purportedly in accordance with the Standing Orders of Parliament, a practice many have become accustomed to. Yet, a simple reading of Standing Order 108 reveals the basic obligations of the committee as it relates to the presentation of a report to the House. The motion falls far short of those basic requirements.

The Standing Orders read in part as follows:

108.

(1)

(a)

Standing committees shall be severally empowered to examine and enquire into all such matters as may be referred to them by the House, to report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the Chair, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members…

 

(2)

The standing committees, except those set out in sections (3)(a), (3)(f), (3)(h) and (4) of this Standing Order, shall, in addition to the powers granted to them pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order and pursuant to Standing Order 81, be empowered to study and report on all matters relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department or departments of government which are assigned to them from time to time by the House. In general, the committees shall be severally empowered to review and report on:

 

 

(e)

other matters, relating to the mandate, management, organization or operation of the department, as the committee deems fit.

Under Standing Order 108(2) there is no question that the committee is empowered to study and report on a moratorium on deportations, as this topic is unquestionably a matter relating to the mandate, management and operation of the department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Yet the essence of Standing Order 108(2)(e) is that there must be either an examination and inquiry, or a study and report or at the very least a review of some kind by Parliamentarians before there can be a report to the House.

The Standing Orders that are expressly excluded by Order 108(2) also contemplate a review and report. This further suggests that something more than a mere motion brought forward by a committee member, totally out of context of any review or work before the committee.

With respect to the presentation of the report, this is governed by Standing Order 109 which reads as follows:

109.

(1)

(a)

Within 120 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto, and when such a response has been requested, no motion for the concurrence in the report may be proposed until the comprehensive response has been tabled or the expiration of the said period of 120 days.

A motion of and in itself is not a report. The word “report” from the Oxford English Dictionary is defined as, “an account given or an opinion formally expressed after an investigation or consideration.” The word review is defined as, “an assessment of a subject or thing.” These are the conditions precedent to a matter coming before the House.

From a point of order perspective, the motion arguably was premature as there cannot be a report or recommendation to the House until such time as the committee has studied, reviewed, examined or inquired into the matter and then reported in the nature of the Motion.

A motion asking the committee to first review and then report to the House on the issue of undocumented workers would have been in order and appropriate. The Motion as presented by the Member for Burnaby–Douglas is not that.

The standing orders ostensibly set down rules for parliamentarians to prepare reports, and that is the purpose of Standing Orders 108 and 109. The Standing Orders should be interpreted as supporting parliamentarians to do this important task, and not as allowing members to transfer this task to others.

We would want to look at the issue of undocumented workers and would expect that every member of this committee should also want to be part of a careful and comprehensive examination of this important issue. To do so would provide each of us with voice on solutions to the unfortunate circumstances facing those persons living and working in Canada without status. The issue of the plight facing undocumented workers is simply too important to this committee to allow us to abandon or otherwise ignore our responsibilities as Parliamentarians and to simply defer this matter to someone else to prepare a report without any input from this committee whatsoever.

To be sure, the issue of undocumented workers is a serious and far reaching one that requires the attention of this Government.

In fact it is the second item of attention that this committee will study when it returns in the fall session, commencing in September of 2006.

The motion in issue was passed pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) despite my objections as Parliamentary Secretary and in our personal capacity as Members of Parliament and as members of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.

We took issue and objection to the motion if passed being treated as a Report to the House of Commons, when it was in fact and on any objective basis not a report. It came in the simple form of a Motion presented in the nature of a recommendation without a shred of evidence having been heard, without any material of any kind, and without witnesses or interests groups appearing.

Indeed, the Motion itself does not meet the prerequisites or conditions required for it to be a report pursuant to Standing Orders 108 and as such, should not have been allowed to be treated as a report.

In fact, it is either an abuse of the committee process or at the very least a use of Standing Order 108 in a manner it was never intended to be used. The presentation of the motion as a report to the House also accrues to it other benefits such as those provided under Standing Order 109, namely, a response from the government and ultimately the ability for a Motion of concurrence.

Given the absolute lack of any evidence or study of an issue of such significant importance, and given the fact that the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration will be studying the issue of undocumented workers upon the return of the House in the fall, it would only be appropriate that the issue raised in the motion be subsumed in the study of undocumented workers and that the results be incorporated in the report resulting therefrom.

We therefore request a response from the Government with respect to my request that the subject matter of the motion be made part of the larger study by the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration on undocumented workers.

As additional support to the argument that the purported report is not a report as contemplated by Standing Order 108 are references to the relevant provisions as found in the House of Commons Procedure and Practice (ed. 2000) edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit, appended hereto as schedule “A”.

All of which is respectfully submitted this 22nd day of June, 2006

Ed Komarnicki, M.P.
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration

I concur:

Rahim Jaffer, M.P.
Edmonton–Strathcona

Nina Grewal, M.P.
Fleetwood–Port Kells

Barry Devolin, M.P.
Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock