Finance Committee on May 7th, 2008

[Andrew Jackson]

On appointments to the board, my understanding is that there'll be a nominating committee that will consist of a chair.... The worker and employer commissioners will be involved in the process. So I think there's some presumption that both the employer and worker sides will have some involvement.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Mr. Céré, you stated that if the account was in a deficit situation in a given year, you would expect the shortfall to be covered by the $54 billion that was misappropriated over a period of many years.

[Pierre Céré]

In the early 1990s.

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

I have a specific question for you. Why are you not demanding that one billion per year be put back into the account? As the account grows, premiums could be reduced?

[Pierre Céré]

That could be one option. What we're saying, first and foremost, is that the $54 billion should not be relegated to history. The amount should be accounted for and interest, even virtual interest, should be calculated on the $54 billion. This amount represents a debt to the EI Account. A reimbursement schedule should be worked out in a way that does not affect the account balance. For example, if one billion is refunded to the account, the government should not see this as an opportunity to lower premiums to a point where the EI system loses all of its value.

We can't forget that the EI system is one of Canada's main social programs, along with health care. Workers need EI when they are between jobs. EI is not a lifestyle, but a program that affords workers protection when they are between jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Jackson.

[Andrew Jackson]

The $54 billion surplus that's sitting in the EI account has interest charged to it every year. This bill does nothing to change that. It still sits there as a separate account integrated with the public accounts. Minister Flaherty confirmed in a letter that if the EI program went into a deficit because of a recession and premiums didn't cover it, the program would still be covered by the government and by the EI account. I think that's the intent of the government.

What this bill doesn't do is make clear that the EI surplus continues to exist and should continue to be available for EI purposes. Effectively, if you do that, you leave it up to future consideration on just how we might deal with this problem. You might end up with a Supreme Court decision in a few weeks that throws this back to you. So you should reflect on it a bit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We'll now move to Mr. Del Mastro. Are you splitting your time?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, I'll be using the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

For the benefit of my colleagues who have missed the last 27 months of sound government, I wanted to point out that we are the only country in the G7 currently running fiscal surpluses while paying down debt. We have the hottest economy in the G7. We've created over 800,000 jobs in this country. We have year-over-year increases in employment income of 4.5%. By virtually any measure, this government's financial record is outstanding. So I'm not sure what the members opposite are discussing right now. Certainly Canada is in good hands.

Ms. Zerehi, just so you know, my grandparents immigrated to Canada. I'm very sensitive to immigration issues. I work on a number of immigration issues. I asked a number of questions to the assistant deputy minister on concerns that I had. My first question to her was:

Could you elaborate on how the proposed changes will ensure that there is no discrimination based on race, ethnicity, place of origin, and so forth?

Her response was:

As I mentioned in response to one of the other questions, one of the important considerations we will need to take into account as we develop the instructions is our range of obligations and commitments internationally and domestically. Domestically, we have the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, and the objectives in it require us to ensure an appropriate balance among the various programs. We also have our obligations under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ensure we apply the law and exercise all authority in full conformity with those rights and obligations, which explicitly prohibit any form of discrimination.

Secondly, you talked about people who fall through the cracks. I work a lot with people who have fallen through the cracks. People fall through the cracks because they get frustrated sitting in the queue. We have a 6.5-year to 8-year waiting list, so they jump the queue. They wind up coming to Canada undocumented. What I asked her is:

There are various methods in trying to end-run the system. It's because the system is grinding to a halt. It's because it's taking so long. I support these amendments, which are aimed at speeding up the system. Can you elaborate on those people who have applied, the current applications? Can you talk about how those applications will be dealt with, how the old system will be transformed, and how those people can rest assured that their place in the queue won't simply be forgotten?

Her response:

The amendments contain some transition provisions that deal with applications, both pre- and post-February 27. For those who are in the backlog, that is, the pre-February 27 backlog, the minister's obligation and undertaking is to bring that number down as quickly as possible, because it is that enormous amount that is constricting the overall system. By way of the budgetary amounts that were accorded to the department, we will undertake a number of activities such as letter-writing campaigns to confirm people's interest in some of the administrative efficiency measures that the minister talked about. There is the resource issue in terms of addressing resources in some of the higher volume missions such as Manila and Delhi, which is to make sure they have some of the tools to chew through the backlog as quickly as they can.

I also asked her if she could confirm to me whether the current system—

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. Crête, it had better be a point of order.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Are you going to apologize on behalf of the committee to the witnesses who were denied the time that should rightfully have been theirs to answer questions?

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

No, I'm not, because I think it's important.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

No, that's not a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Del Mastro.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

This is my time, Mr. Crête.

I asked her:

Can you please confirm for me whether the current system forces immigration officials to process applications for people who have either already immigrated to other nations or who have in fact died since they've put their application in? Do they remain in the queue and still need to be processed?

The answer: “We're obliged to process all applications.”

You mentioned a number of concerns. You mentioned the potential for discrimination. You talked about how people who are currently in the queue would be forgotten about. You talked about how the system would essentially give the minister undue ability. But what we heard in response was exactly the opposite of that. That's from an impartial governmental official.

What would you respond to that?

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

I'll start with your point about discrimination. I'll actually quote someone from the Canadian Arab Federation. We've heard from Mohamed Boudjenane, who is the executive director of the Canadian Arab Federation, citing again and again at press conferences that since September 11 there has been a significant decrease in the number of permanent residency applications that have been granted to members of the Arab and Muslim community. This is prior to these changes.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Peterborough, ON]

But that's because the system is grinding to a halt, Ms. Zerehi.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

I think the reality is that we agree that the system needs to be fixed, but the way it needs to be fixed is by allocating more resources to process applications, to ensure that every single application will be looked at. People who are frustrated sitting in a queue are not the people who are falling through the cracks and coming here without documentation. Oftentimes the people without documentation are the people who will never, ever meet the current criteria under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to come here. Those are the people who are providing the so-called low-skilled labourers here in the country. So I think there is a conflict there in terms of who's falling through the cracks.

Also, people are falling through the cracks because some of our current immigrant policies, such as the way our Immigration and Refugee Board operates, are alienating people. The application processes are difficult, and people don't have access to the legal remedies that they need to be able to successfully navigate those systems. Those are the kinds of people who are falling through the cracks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

The time is now gone. We will pause for a couple of minutes as we thank the witnesses, first of all, for coming and for contributing. We will now dismiss them from the table and we'll continue with some business of the committee.

With that, we'll have a two-minute pause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I call the meeting back to order.

First of all, I committed to the committee that I would talk to the chair of the immigration committee with regard to the letter we had sent him wanting their reply back to our committee by May 9. He sent us a letter saying it would be the 16th. I've done that. He is working hard with his committee--I believe they're meeting this afternoon--to try to accommodate us as much as he possibly can. I haven't heard exactly what's coming out of that, but he assured me they're going to try to work on that and accelerate that as much as possible. So I would suggest that we allow them to continue their work and see if they can accelerate that and get back to us. Hopefully they'll have it before the break. That's what his attempt was going to be.

Mr. Pacetti.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

If you ask it, you will seek it. I think we have consensus. I've talked with some of the people around the table. The immigration committee's going to try, with as much effort as possible, to get the report out by the committed date of the 16th, as per their letter of April 29. They'll use the week off for translation, and it should be ready by the 26th at the latest.

So I would suggest we move our meeting from the 26th to the 27th and we go to clause-by-clause on Tuesday, May 27, and we work around the clock, if need be. But we're ready to have the bill out by May 27.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I know we're attempting to get it through by the break, but it's actually not that bad. It's right after the break, and it sounds reasonable to me.

Ms. Chow.

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

I'm moving the motion by Mr. Mulcair for a joint meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

We have the motion on the floor right now, so we'll deal with it first.