Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I call the meeting to order.

I'm sure the rest of our committee members will be along. Question period was over at three o'clock; I don't know why they shouldn't be here now.

We'll continue with our second meeting today pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), consideration of the subject matter of part 6 of Bill C-50.

We have witnesses today for the first hour. From the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants we have Philip Mooney, the national president. Welcome again. We welcome as individuals Lorne Waldman, immigration lawyer, and Barbara Jackman, immigration and refugee lawyer. From the Canadian Council for Refugees we have Janet Dench, executive director. Welcome again, Janet. It's good to see you all.

You're all familiar with how we proceed, so if you have any opening statements, you may make them in any order you wish.

I will go to Mr. Waldman.

[Lorne Waldman, Immigration Lawyer, As an Individual]

I want to apologize in advance. Before I was invited to this committee, I was invited to another committee at 4:30, so I have to leave here a few minutes early.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay. That's not a problem.

[Lorne Waldman]

The first issue is to deal with some of the claims about what this legislation is and what it will do. This is something I will try to clarify.

We've heard this legislation is about the backlog. I hope that by now it's perfectly clear that this legislation has absolutely nothing to do with the backlog. The legislation expressly provides that it's not retroactive and will not apply to the hundreds of thousands of cases in the backlog.

It's important for the committee to consider that there is a very serious problem with the backlog, but that this problem is not being resolved by the legislation. To understand the problem, the first thing you have to consider is how it is that a backlog of 900,000 cases developed. And one of the important things to clarify is, since when?

In 2002 the legislation was changed. This backlog has developed since 2002, because the backlog that existed prior to that has been cleared over the course of the last six years. This was done by the settlement of the class action dealing with all the people in the previous backlog.

We have a backlog that's been allowed to grow to 900,000. I suggest to you that this has occurred because of inaction on the part of immigration officials who stood by watching the backlog grow. There were mechanisms that would have allowed them to take action to stem the backlog, but they did nothing. So we now have to consider that we have a problem.

One of the major concerns I have with this legislation is that it will give the bureaucracy a great deal of new powers. I would submit that they haven't shown themselves competent to deal with the powers they have under the current legislation.

Secondly, we've heard it said that we need this legislation because a minister needs to have the power to be able to accelerate certain applicants and to make decisions about who gets processed when. An important point needs to be made here—that power already exists. We do not need this legislation to create that power. Take, for example, the existing provincial nominee program. The provincial nominees who are chosen by the provinces get priority over all other economic migrants, and this is done through a political direction made by the minister to the visa officers overseas.

I went to court two years ago on a case called Vaziri et. al v. Canada, in which I challenged the right of the minister to prioritize spousal sponsorships over parental sponsorships. I said that there had to be a regulation. I lost. The Federal Court said that the Minister of Immigration has the power to make political decisions about who gets prioritized and in what order. So this legislation has nothing to do with the need of the minister to prioritize certain types of applications over others.

Third, the minister has said that this legislation has nothing to do with individual applications. Unfortunately, as a lawyer, I can tell you that the wording of the legislation does not bear this out. If you look at the legislation and you understand the basic principles of statutory interpretation, it is clear that the legislation gives the minister the power to make individual decisions about individual applications.

Now, this minister may say that she has no intention of doing this. But we learned the hard way, in the debate over the last Immigration Act, that what a minister says doesn't help us much when we go to the Federal Court years later.

There was a case called Cha v. Canada, in which we said to the Federal Court, “The minister said that this was going to happen.” The Federal Court just looked at us and said, “Well, that's very nice.” The court pointed out that the minister may say whatever she wants at the time. But the court's job years later is to interpret the legislation, and when they do so, it's based on the wording. So the court will consider what the minister says, but they're not going to distort the wording of the legislation in order to interpret it in the way the minister suggested.

There is lots more I could say. I want to talk about what the legislation does and what the concerns are.

The main power of the legislation given to the minister, aside from the power to interfere in individual applications, is the power to change the rules retroactively through the issuance of instructions.

Now, why is that a problem? There are two reasons. First of all, our immigration system, over the course of the last forty years, has been built upon a transparent, non-discriminatory point system. This point system allows individuals to know the criteria at the time they apply. If they meet the criteria, under the current legislation they have a right to get a decision based on that criteria, and, if they qualify, a right to a visa. This is very important, because it means we have clear, transparent rules for which the government of the time is politically accountable.

If the minister has the power to retroactively change the rules, it means the rules no longer have any meaning, because they can be changed years later. There's no political accountability at all, and no transparency, because people who apply will have no way of knowing from the moment they apply until the moment they get the visa whether they're going to qualify.

The last point I want to make, given that I've probably spoken longer than I'm supposed to, is the concern I have about what this bill does in terms of political accountability and the role of Parliament. The concern here is simply this: now, important changes to the regulations are debated here in committee. They're publicized in advance so that people get notification of the changes, and there's an open debate and political accountability at the end of the process. But if this bill goes through, the minister will have the power to make changes without any accountability, except for what occurs after the fact, and there will be no political discussion.

Let's assume the bill is passed, which it likely will be now, sometime before the end of this current session, and becomes law on June 30. On July 2, the minister can issue an instruction. Parliament will not be sitting; Parliament likely won't sit again until October, so fundamental and very significant changes could be made to the immigration system with no debate for four or five months. It completely undermines the role of Parliament in the political process and it's contrary to the spirit in which this government was elected, when the government said they wanted to make Parliament more involved in the political process.

What this bill really does is undermine the role of Parliament and this committee. I think it sets a very dangerous precedent, because if they can pass legislation that allows them to issue instructions in immigration, what's to stop them tomorrow from doing it in environment or in something else? Then we can have government by instruction instead of government by regulation, which is a serious undermining of the role that Parliament plays in the political process.

Those are my opening comments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Waldman. You are right on cue.

Next we can have Ms. Jackman or Ms. Dench or Mr. Mooney.

[Barbara Jackman, Immigration and Refugee Lawyer, As an Individual]

I probably won't take the full seven minutes. Lorne and I think alike on a lot of these issues, and I agree with everything Lorne has said.

There are three points I want to add with respect to this proposed legislation.

One is that the proposed changes to section 11 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act will allow a visa officer.... Instead of it being mandatory to give the visa, it will now be permissive, which leaves open the door for visa officers to say, “Fine, I don't like you”—for whatever reason—“so even though you may qualify for a visa, I'm not going to give it to you.”

That fits in with the provision for a new section--proposed section 87.3--which allows the minister to give instructions--under proposed paragraph 87.3(3)(d)--to provide “for the disposition of applications and requests”. Disposition of an application for landing is the decision, so the minister can give instructions about the decision.

In my experience, there are individuals who make applications for landing, who qualify, who meet the requirement, and who are not inadmissible, but, for one reason or another, a visa officer doesn't like them because of the job they held. One of my clients had a job for his government. A fairly high-level job doesn't make him inadmissible, on security grounds, doesn't make him inadmissible on criminality, or anything like that, but they don't like him. They're nervous about letting him in.

This gives them the power to refuse that man's landing in Canada for no reason--other than they don't like him because they think they wouldn't have worked for that government. It's a moralistic kind of position.

That's the kind of problem that can be created with it being permissive and with the minister being allowed to have the authority to decide on the disposition of applications, notwithstanding that people apply.

The other problem with the legislation, in terms of the kinds of cases we see, is with the proposed amendments to section 25, which say that if the person's in Canada and they make a humanitarian and compassionate application, it “shall” be considered. If they're outside of Canada, it “may” be considered. So my understanding, from the proposed change to that section, is that the minister intends to say that they will not receive certain humanitarian applications.

Have they come before you and said, “We're inundated with humanitarian applications--we have too many, we can't handle them, and that's why we need this power”? I haven't seen any statistics on an overload of humanitarian applications, but I can tell you what those humanitarian applications are now.

Parliament, in its wisdom, gave the Governor in Council the power to pass regulations about who gets in and who doesn't in the family class, so if you misrepresented about, say, a spouse.... I'll give you the kind of example we see all the time.

Parents are sponsored to Canada, and there are three kids included in the application. The son's in Canada and is the landed sponsor of the parents and the kids. They get their visa five years later. The eldest of the kids, who's still in school, gets married after he gets his visa. He had put off having the marriage—he had to be unmarried in order to come to Canada as a sponsored dependant—and he thought he had to be unmarried until the visa was issued.

So he gets married, flies to Canada the next day, and goes back to sponsor his spouse. He misrepresented. He wasn't allowed to get married after the visa was issued and before he landed in Canada. He didn't know that.

His wife is not a member of the family class. The immigration officer in Canada says to him, “We're not going to take any steps against you, because it was understandable that you didn't understand the law. You didn't do this deliberately.”

So he goes to sponsor his wife and it has to be a humanitarian application. She's not his wife under our regulations. Even though we're not taking any steps against him, his wife cannot come to Canada. As a member of the family class, she can't be sponsored.

And you would not believe how many parents' children are refused landing—6-year-olds, 7-year-olds, 12-year-olds, 15-year-olds—because the parents, in one way or another, misrepresented. Or else their spouses are not allowed to come.

This gives the minister the power to say, “You can't even make the application. We're not going to receive it.” Those are the H and C applications that are outstanding now. To give the minister the power to say “We're not even going to receive those applications” is inhumane.

Now, the minister will say, “Oh, we'll never use it for that purpose”, but you know, we've heard enough times over the years that they won't apply it in one way or another. So for....

I'm not going to go off on side issues, but there are a number of cases where the government said, “We'll never use it that way.” Well, you know, it is used that way, and in the end it hurts people.

Why can't we have transparent laws? Let them act in a transparent fashion, and let them establish to the satisfaction of the Canadian public that we need certain regulations in place at different points in time. They shouldn't have the power to do it all behind closed doors by fiat, and that's what this legislation gives them.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Jackman.

Ms. Dench.

[Janet Dench, Executive Director, Canadian Council for Refugees]

Thank you.

I am here today representing the Canadian Council for Refugees. We thank you for this opportunity to comment on the amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act in Bill C-50.

As many of you already know, CCR is a coalition of over 170 organizations throughout Canada. We have tabled with the Committee a letter we sent to the Prime Minister on Bill C-50. This letter, or a similar one, was signed by over 40 organizations, including the three major provincial umbrella organizations, TCRI in Quebec, OCASI in Ontario and AMSSA in British Columbia. These organizations represent several hundred other groups.

First, in commenting on the amendments, there is wide agreement that there is a problem in the immigration system leading to backlogs. Having said that, we do not believe the proposed amendments are the best way to address the problem.

There are some concerns about the process. On the lack of consultation, the proposed amendments were introduced without the normal prior consultation with stakeholders. This means the proposal has not had the benefit of the full range of perspectives. Secondly, the amendments do not belong in the budget bill. They should be dealt with through separate legislation debated on its own merits.

On lack of explanatory information, discussion over the amendments has been severely hampered by the lack of adequate information to explain the proposed changes, leading to widespread confusion and uncertainty. For several weeks there has been confusion about whether the proposed new instructions apply to family class. They do. The government has not helped the situation by constantly confusing the powers actually in the bill and the government's intentions with respect to the use of these powers in the short term.

That brings me to my next point: intentions are not law. As parliamentarians considering whether or not to pass a law, you must ask yourself how the law might be used in the future, not just how the current government proposes to use the new powers. Expressions of current intention are no protection against future uses of the powers in very different ways.

Our recent experience with IRPA, section 117, shows the dangers of relying on ministerial promises. When IRPA was debated in Parliament in 2001, the then Minister Elinor Caplan promised that section 117, which criminalizes people smuggling, would never be used against humanitarians helping refugees. Despite those promises, in 2007, a church worker, Janet Hinshaw-Thomas, was arrested and charged with people-smuggling under section 117 for accompanying refugees to the Canadian border. Inevitably we must ask ourselves what would prevent a future minister from ignoring the commitments made by Minister Finley about how the amendments would be used and applying the new powers in very different ways.

Concretely--and briefly--I will list our major concerns with the new powers given by the bill.

These amendments gave the minister far too much discretion, allowing her to change the rules at will.

These amendments will allow the minister to issue “instructions“ without any parliamentary supervision or mandatory consultations. The fact that the rules for accepting immigrants can be determined and changed by ministerial fiat will create uncertainty, a lack of transparency and make the immigrant selection process vulnerable to inappropriate political pressure.

The amendments eliminate the right to permanent residency for applicants who follow the law.

The amendments eliminate the right to have one's application on humanitarian and compassionate grounds considered if it is made from outside of Canada. The legislation will allow for the return of these applications or for simply discarding them.

So why is the overseas H and C application important? To follow on some of the remarks of Barbara Jackman, I will list two situations where the law does not provide children with the right to family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate applications are the only recourse.

First, separated refugee children in Canada cannot apply for family reunification with their parents and siblings who are outside Canada. The only way for these children to be reunited with their parents and siblings is through H and C.

Secondly, the excluded family member rule, regulation 117(9)(d), keeps many children unfairly separated from their parents and separates spouses. The only way for affected families to overcome the exclusion is through H and C.

We recently published compelling profiles of families, many of them refugees, kept separate as a result of this rule.

The government has suggested that they would continue to examine all family-related H and C applications. However, this is only an expression of intention. If you pass this bill in its present form, a future government could issue instructions leading to family-related H and C applications not being examined.

It is also important to recognize that there are other compelling situations not related to family reunification where an H and C application is the only recourse. They might never be examined if this bill is passed.

In conclusion, the immigration program needs to value immigrants. The proposed amendments come in the context of, and contribute to, a disturbing shift towards the use of immigration primarily to meet Canadian employers' needs, without regard to broader Canadian interests. This includes the problematic increasing reliance on temporary work permits. Canada needs to consider immigrants as full participants in society, not simply as disposable units to fill currently available jobs.

This means recognizing the need for effective and efficient family reunification policies and practices so that immigrants can be with their families. Yet the government is not addressing chronic problems that mean some children spend years separated from their parents.

Finally, our recommendation is that the proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act be removed from Bill C-50 and dealt with as a separate piece of legislation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Ms. Dench.

Mr. Mooney.

[Philip Mooney, National President, Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, committee members, and distinguished colleagues.

Recently the minister made some very welcome changes to the after-graduation student work permit program by exempting students from having to find an employer and by extending the work permit to three years. These changes move Canada to the front of the pack among immigrant destination countries in terms of our ability to keep students in Canada after graduation. This also demonstrates that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is already very capable of changing the system and does not need additional powers.

How did this welcome change come about? It was not because of a clause included in the budget, nor was it because of an instruction issued through the Canada Gazette. It came about because the practitioner community, many of whom are here today, was involved in continuing consultations with the department, along with other stakeholders, including those in the education community. We identified the problem, and then, working together, we proposed solutions as part of the normal consultative process.

The first part of the solution was to include certain provisions in IRPA in 2002, giving points for education in Canada and allowing work permits for graduates. An interim measure was announced two years ago for schools and jobs outside the major urban centres to encourage students to settle away from those areas. Finally, as the lengthening processing times were becoming a threat to keeping graduates, this new policy was announced.

In effect, the practitioner community can be considered the canary in the coal mine that brings early warnings of problems ahead, because we deal directly with the users of the system every day, be they applicants, visa officers, or port of entry officials. In some ways, your constituency offices do the same thing.

In addition to the warnings, we are continuously discussing problems and policies with senior CIC officials and are working on solutions to a variety of problems. If the minister wanted solutions faster, I'm sure that all my compatriots here would agree to accelerate those discussions.

We can point to many examples, since the launch of IRPA and even before, of consultation having improved the system. However, when one of the parties acts precipitously, it endangers the process, as it demonstrates a lack of respect for input. The process deserves respect.

We've heard a lot about the issue of faster entry for highly desired skilled workers. As a result of changes to the temporary foreign worker program, any employer can already bring needed workers to Canada within times ranging from a few days to a few months. Very few countries can compete with us in this area. Changes can and are being made to remove bottlenecks as they occur.

In fact, Canada has a huge advantage in attracting skilled workers as permanent residents, based on the criteria required to apply, compared to every other destination country. Other countries, such as Australia and England, have a mandatory English language requirement that works against attracting the best and brightest from certain countries, be they knowledge workers or skilled tradespeople. Canada is almost alone among competing countries in allowing skilled workers to come here as permanent residents without having a job offer. Our biggest competitor in this market in the world, namely the U.S., doesn't allow this.

Speaking of the backlog, we need to separate that issue into two parts. First is the size of the backlog, and second is the length of time people have to wait before their file is processed. We agree that the size of the backlog can only be contained by restricting intake or increasing output or both. The minister has the power to do both already.

IRPA gives the minister the right to exclude certain groups from applying, for a number of reasons. Children or siblings over 21 cannot be sponsored in the family class, nor can nephews, nieces, uncles, or aunts. No skilled workers will be approved if they do not have at least one year's work experience, and so on.

Second, the length of time a person spends in the backlog has little or nothing to do with when they apply. This is because we do not have a first in, first out system. Since the early days of IRPA, more and more groups have been allowed to jump the queue. First, Quebec and Manitoba selected workers. Other provincial nominee programs followed. Then it was persons who already had arranged employment in Canada. Then it was investors, who effectively buy their way into Canada. Soon it will be the new Canadian-experience class.

Finally, if these changes are approved, individuals who are already in the backlog will be allowed to jump the queue, because their skills are urgently needed.

So you see, the minister already has the power to bring those needed here faster by allowing them to jump the queue and has done so repeatedly.

But pity the poor applicants who will not be allowed to jump the queue. Pity the poor applicants in Delhi and Beijing, Damascus and Pretoria, Accra and Ankara, Moscow and Manila. They are now looking at six-year waits; soon it will be ten years or more. This is not what they were told when they applied.

To be perfectly clear, the backlog is not a backlog at all, depending on where you live. If you live in the United States, your application will be processed in one year; anywhere in Latin America or the Caribbean--except Colombia--in one to two years. But if you live in Africa or the Middle East, the best you can hope for is four years, while, in most cases, you must wait at least five years or more. Asia is even worse.

We note the ministry will be sending out 50,000 letters to see how many people are still in the backlog, versus how many have given up. We have been conducting a similar survey among our members to see how many of our clients who are in the backlog have given up. The answer so far is only about 10%. This is about normal, given the fact that some people change their minds or have a drastic change in circumstance.

It seems that people who apply to come to Canada really want to come to Canada, even if it means waiting a long time. What will happen if, as a result of these changes, five years turns to ten is yet to be seen. However, it's obvious that when people do apply, they are very serious about it. This is why we oppose in the strongest possible way the idea that people will be allowed to apply but may not get their applications processed.

I repeat, when people apply, they are serious about wanting to come to Canada. Some plan their lives around qualifying. They get their hopes up. The possibility of acceptance colours all of their planning and all of their actions every day. People are used to the fact that when they're allowed to buy a ticket to a show, and even seat themselves, they expect to be able to see the show. If the show is sold out, they understand that they cannot buy a ticket. But they are not used to being told, after getting seated, that they cannot stay to watch--just when the lights go down.

The minister already has the power to declare a sellout in any category. Why is the power needed to remove the ticket holders?

What can and should be done? First, immigration fees should be set at the appropriate amount necessary to pay for the cost of processing files, and should go directly to the department. This way, greater demand in any category--such as temporary foreign workers--would result in more funds to pay for timely processing. Right now, the fees go into general revenues and, despite all the rhetoric, nothing happens unless the government gives CIC more money.

Second, the minister should declare that anyone who already has employment in Canada, or the guarantee of a job in Canada, does not count against the annual target. After all, people who come here to work immediately do not need settlement assistance. A job is the best settlement program. This would allow fluctuating labour market needs to be met with a balance of the target made up of those who are allowed to apply.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Mooney, I'll interrupt you there because you've gone over your time. We only have an hour and we have to get our next group on. Could you maybe make some of your points during the question and answer period?

[Philip Mooney]

Absolutely. Thank you for your time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'll go to Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank the witnesses for the excellent presentations we have received. I understand you're probably working a double shift because we have two committees looking at the same thing, something that perhaps could have been avoided with proper planning.

Then again, this has been the story of Bill C-50. They introduce amendments that actually don't deal with backlogs. The government, unfortunately, can't really be taken seriously about reforming Canada's immigration system, judging from the amount of investment they're willing to make in this field. This is all occurring at a time when Canada is facing an aging population, demographic shifts, as well as skill shortages.

There are a lot of inconsistencies, and this is the reason why ads have to be taken out in newspapers--even though they're not very clear--about what exactly the issues are. This is the reason why this process was, I guess, ill-conceived, as were the amendments.

I want to get to the bottom of a fundamental issue that is really puzzling to me. Why would a minister or government make such obvious errors in planning, in conceiving a piece of legislation, in not understanding they already have powers to deal with the issues they want to deal with, in thinking that they could somehow bypass Parliament in proper debate? How does this happen, and what essentially do you believe is the motivation behind this? We're all very puzzled by how all these errors could occur in one file. What's your point of view on that?

[Lorne Waldman]

I'll go first, if that's okay.

It strikes me that the government must have been aware that there's a big problem. Clearly, we've been saying it, all of us. The practitioners, for years, have been complaining about the ever-increasing backlog. So I believe the government was made aware that there is a problem, and then, I suppose, they asked the officials to provide a solution.

Now, if you take my remarks, I believe that to a very large extent the officials are the ones who were responsible for this. I find it really hard to understand how it could be that in six years they could allow a backlog to go from zero to 900,000. It's unbelievable. But having created this problem, I think they have to propose a solution.

To admit that they already had the powers to correct the problem years ago and didn't take action is politically embarrassing, so they have to suggest that they need new powers--when in fact most of the powers they say they need, they already had. The one new power they are seeking, which is the power to retroactively change everything, in my view eliminates all accountability. What it ultimately does is it means, “Well, if we make mistakes, we can eliminate all the mistakes by wiping out all the applications.”

So that's my explanation. I just think this mess has been allowed to grow over years and years. Now it's difficult to admit that we've allowed this mess to grow. We have to try to justify it by saying we have this crisis and we need urgent powers, when in fact they already had the powers. They could have done all of these things years ago but chose not to.

[Philip Mooney]

I'd just like to add to that.

I think the reason we got to this stage is because there wasn't a consultation. It's not unusual in the course of problem-solving that you come up with some pretty crazy ideas. We've come up with fairly crazy ideas on how to solve these problems in the past, and so has the ministry. It's by exchanging the dialogue that you get to something that really works, like on a student program. In this case it didn't happen.

As to why it didn't happen, that speaks to the political motivation of how they did this, which I don't think I can speak to. But definitely it happened because there was no consultation. It would have taken an hour of discussion about these, as we normally do, at least an informal process twice a year, an ad hoc process as often as necessary. We would have had the time to say, “Wait a minute, we can't do this.”

And it's no different from when we've asked for things and the ministry says, “No, you can't do that because....” It's a give-and-take, and hopefully well-intentioned people sitting around a table trying to solve a problem and coming up with good answers. But that sitting around the table never happened.

[Barbara Jackman]

I was just going to say that I think they're power-hungry. It's coming from the bureaucrats. I think if they see an opening where they can move in, use the backlog as an excuse--because this isn't going to cover the backlog, this amendment--then they jump on it. Because there is no doubt this will give the bureaucrats the ability to, by fiat, change immigration policy and classes and whatever.

One of the things that really bother me about all this, about the emphasis on the workers, is that all of those workers have family. They have parents who they're going to want to bring to Canada some day. They have spouses and kids; maybe they're not going to bring them immediately. It's so short-sighted to look at workers as though workers are independent from the social network in the community that they live in and to treat our country as one where all we're going to do is bring in those skilled workers. You can't do that to people. It's got to be human.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

It's incredible that a person who's ultimately responsible for her own ministry, namely the minister, would not be able to understand all these problems. It's baffling. This is why I'm having such a hard time getting my head around the political motivation of this bill, because it's so self-evident that you can't govern by not consulting. You can't govern by railroading the bill through a budget bill. You just simply can't do that. This is not how democracy works.

It's very puzzling that these flaws are so self-evident. People who come in front of us, the vast number of them, are now saying to just scrap the bill because it doesn't make sense.

So that's why when the minister comes, I need to actually ask her, “What is it really? What is the agenda? What is it that's really motivating these reforms?” Quite frankly, it's certainly not the backlog, because we've determined that already. Everybody agrees it's not about the backlog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Make it a brief response, please.

[Barbara Jackman]

Can I say one thing? When the minister comes, ask her if there is a backlog of humanitarian and compassionate applications overseas. If she says there is and it's not family class, ask her if it's the wives and children or the husbands of the people who are doing the sponsoring. They don't call them family class because they're not considered in this class if the person sponsoring misrepresented under regulation 117(9)(d). They won't count them as family class, but they are family members.

So find out if there is a backlog. I don't know where they're coming from, on this humanitarian one, to give themselves power to just cut it all out.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Chair, I want to apologize to Mr. Telegdi. He was going to get a minute or so, but I guess I went a little longer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I don't think we'll have any time at the end. We're all filled up here.

Mr. St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to all for coming today. I would like to start with Ms. Dench.

I know that the CCR is active throughout Canada. You probably know how the immigrant selection system works in Quebec.

When the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Finance to answer questions on immigration, she assured us that this bill would have no impact on the selection process of Quebec. As you know, this province selects its own immigrants and submits their names to the federal government. Is this your understanding?

However, applications for family reunification and on humanitarian and compassionate grounds are outside the control of the Quebec government. This means that the amendments in the bill would have some impact on immigration to Quebec.

My question is directed to Ms. Dench unless other witnesses wish to answer also.

[Janet Dench]

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr.

Your understanding that applications controlled by the government of Quebec are not directly impacted by the instructions is correct. However, the language of these amendments is far from clear. There is a huge lack of explanatory notes to provide real answers to all these questions.

We must also look beyond the instructions. As my colleagues have said, other provisions in the bill give greater powers to the department that might have an impact on applications, including the power to not issue a visa even if the applicant meets all the criteria. These provisions would also apply to immigrants selected by Quebec, those who apply on humanitarian or compassionate grounds from outside of Canada and those who want to settle in Quebec. One cannot say that these amendments will not have an impact on immigration to Quebec.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I really want to understand what you are saying and Mr. Waldman might want to comment also.

An immigrant selected by the government of Quebec could ultimately be denied under the proposed amendments? Is that what you are saying?