Finance Committee on April 28th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move into a five-minute round. We'll start with Mr. Turner.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I have three quick questions for you.

Why are you and the government blocking the immigration committee from having a look at this particular issue? This is the finance committee. I'm certainly not an expert in immigration. Why is this happening?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

We're not. In fact, it was our members here who suggested we vote unanimously to support this committee's motion that the citizenship and immigration committee review this and study this subject. As well, we're quite prepared to discuss it in that venue. We've supported that every step of the way.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

With these proposed changes, the Conservative government seems to be asking Canadians to give you, the minister, sweeping new powers. But it seems to us, to many people, that you have tried to bury these provisions in Bill C-50. As my colleague Mr. McCallum showed, you actually misled the House on the number of immigrants, and the chair of the Immigration and Refugee Board actually resigned after you brought in increased ministerial discretion.

So how can Canadians trust you with such sweeping powers when it seems you have back-doored a number of things so far?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

With all due respect, we brought in this legislation, it was tabled in the House of Commons, and it has been debated there, live on national television, with transcripts for any and all who want it. It's being debated here today. We've agreed to have it discussed at the citizenship and immigration committee. We're encouraging that. We've been engaged in debate across the country with literally hundreds of groups to make sure they are aware of it. We're quite prepared to discuss it. But the key point here is that—

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Why didn't it come in as a separate bill, Minister?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Because, number one, as I explained in my opening remarks, immigration is going to provide all of our net labour growth in this country by 2012—

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

I heard that, but why not as a separate bill?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

Without labour, business will not be able to stay in business, and our budget is our economic blueprint for the country. It's a very logical--

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

I heard that. I just wondered if you could answer why it wasn't brought in as a separate bill.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

For two reasons. Number one, it's logical to include it in the budget. We said we'd do that in Budget 2006. We announced we'd do it. We did what we said we'd do.

Number two, if you think back to some other really good legislation we've brought before the House, it's been allowed to languish over the course of two years. We can't afford to wait that long. If we do, we're going to be inflicting 10-year wait times on immigrants. I can't find any justification to do that and to give them false hope of coming here when that's really what would happen.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

That obviously doesn't answer the question.

My third question is this, and I'm asking this on behalf of some people who asked me to ask you. They live in Norfolk County, and they're pretty upset that a couple of nights ago you were a no-show at Delhi. They asked me to ask you why you didn't go there.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

I'm sorry, that has nothing to do with what's being discussed here today. I thought we were here to address Bill C-50. I didn't realize that my riding activities were part of the debate of Bill C-50.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

You are the minister. Can you answer that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

The minister has answered that question. Do you have another one, Mr. Turner?

Go ahead. Ask her another one.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

Can you give an explanation as to why you weren't at that particular meeting?

[An hon. member]

A point of order.

[Garth Turner, Liberal, Halton, ON]

She can answer the question or she cannot answer the question. She's a big girl.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I'm sorry, Mr. Turner, your time is gone.

Monsieur Bachand, the time is yours. Go ahead.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Madam Minister, I would like to continue on a topic raised earlier by my colleague. The figures he gave you speak volumes. I have some other figures that I would like to share with you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Go ahead.

Mr. Turner, if you have something to say, do it outside.

Go ahead, Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I have some figures on the IRB. They show that at the end of 2006, 23,495 people were on the waiting list, in other words 3,000 more than the previous year. The processing time has gone from 11.7 months to 14.3 months, which has consequences for a number of people. For example, Quebec is responsible for providing social services to these people. The fact that the processing time has gone from 11 to 14 months has a direct consequence on the budgets of Quebec and the provinces. Since I do not have much time, I will ask my three questions one after the other.

In the bill, would you be prepared to compensate the provinces for the waiting time caused because commissioners have not been appointed? I think that is important. The provinces or Quebec should not have to pick up the tab just because Ottawa is not moving quickly enough.

Moreover, are you open to the idea of providing compensation on the family reunification side, since the increased waiting period represents additional costs for families?

As regards national security, some people who are waiting for a response have a criminal record. I don't know how your colleague, Mr. Stockwell Day, considers this situation in terms of national security, but it is nevertheless worrisome. The longer the delays get the more likely we are to see an increase in terrorist or criminal infiltration. I would like to hear your comments on that question.

Finally, experts are of the opinion that you are not proceeding with the nominations because some people do not share your ideology. What do you have to say to these experts?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

What we're trying to do here is bring some common sense and some good management techniques to the backlog. We're trying to make sure we get families together faster than they have been. The wait times for those people have been growing. We're also trying to get skilled workers here sooner and get the ones here who are needed for the jobs. It's a better fit for everybody.

We do have arrangements with the provinces for compensation in terms of refugees, and it's a factor that goes into the annual general transfer. Recognition of increases or decreases in the number of refugees going to each province is already accounted for there.

When you talk about the families, this is very important. Refugees are, as I mentioned earlier, a separate case from the regular immigration stream. Yes, we have some challenges. Yes, we have to make sure we uphold our number one responsibility as a department, which is to ensure the safety, the security, and the health of those who are already in this country. To do that we have to do extensive security checks; we have to make sure that people who are allowed to come pass the criminality test because we don't want bad guys coming in; we want good guys coming. And we, as a country, as a government, believe every government's first job is to defend its people, and that's what we're doing when we stop people from coming in who we have determined have criminal records.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Experts are alleging that you are delaying nominations to the position of commissioner because you are trying to find people who share the Conservative Party's ideology. Are you going to tell me that is entirely false? You are already vigorously nodding to say that is not the case, but I would like to know if it is true in part? Appointing commissioners who are very open-minded and who want to let everyone in will run counter to your ideology.

You said earlier that you now wanted people who are competent to hold these positions. I understand that Conservatives will not necessarily be appointed, but as part of the test that they take, are the candidates required to share at least in part the Conservative Party's philosophy on immigration?

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Haldimand—Norfolk, ON]

What we're looking for are people on the Immigration and Refugee Board who are going to be competent. I think competence transcends party lines. I actually happen to believe that all parties can have competent people.

We have a test we administer. We have a rigorous interview process. We have a selection board of people who are independent who choose those who can advance. It's a very rigorous process, and as you say, only 30% to 40% make it through. That means it's a high standard.

We do that to make sure we are getting qualified people, people who can recognize when somebody is trying to abuse our system. Unfortunately, we do have a lot of people who claim refugee status who are trying to abuse what is a really good program.