Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Colleen Beaumier, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Could you table that list for us, please, Minister?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Bezan is next for a minute or two.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to thank the minister for appearing.

Ms. Chow was talking about the imbalance, in her opinion, in where workers are being applied for in western Canada, and not enough doctors.... In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, it would be great if we could bring in 15 to 20 doctors right now. At the same time, our manufacturing industry, the hotel and restaurant trade, the tourism industry, and the construction industry all need probably 300 to 500 workers right now. That's why you get this imbalance in the number of people needing cooks, carpenters, welders, doctors, and so on down the list--they just aren't there.

Can you briefly talk about how the situation today hasn't served us well in Canada? It hasn't served immigrants well because we have his huge backlog. We really need to look at making sure we have the flexibility to meet the needs of our economy, businesses, families, and immigrants.

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

Because it takes so long to get people here, we've had tremendous pressure from a wide range of employers across the country to get them the help they need. We're not training enough people in the skilled trades, for example.

Recently a skilled trades school couldn't open because it couldn't get enough skilled tradespeople to finish it. We've been under a lot of pressure to help these people keep going with their businesses, which means we've expanded the temporary foreign workers program deliberately.

This summer we'll be launching a program called the Canadian experience class. We announced this in Budget 2007. It will allow certain temporary foreign workers, as well as foreign university graduates of Canadian schools with Canadian work experience, to apply for permanent residence from within the country.

So we're tearing down the wall between the permanent and temporary streams in a deliberate effort to get more people here sooner, and get them into the jobs that need to be filled so they can succeed and so that Canada can succeed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

After a final comment from Mr. Wilson, we will thank the minister.

[Blair Wilson, Independent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister.

This committee has done a lot of hard and diligent work. We've heard from many witnesses on this issue.

When it comes to legislation, I try to understand the purpose behind the legislation and why we are passing these types of laws. I hear today that the purpose of this legislation design is to get rid of the backlog, to try to deal with that backlog and manage that inventory.

There are two ways we can manage that inventory. We can let more Canadians in faster and get their names out of the backlog, or we can shut down the application list and completely get rid of the backlog. You and the bureaucrats working with you have preferred to do the latter, instead of dealing with the backlog and letting more Canadians in quicker. We let in 262,000 Canadians when I first got elected here, and last year we let in 36,000 fewer. I don't see that as progress.

The riding I represent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is home to many families of new immigrants. Ms. Minister, what assurances can you give these families in my riding that the changes will not affect family unification?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Minister.

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

There are two parts to that answer. First, our objective is not to get rid of the backlog. Getting rid of the backlog is a means to achieving our objective of getting more immigrants here faster. We want to get families reunited faster. That's part of our mandate under IRPA, and that's why in many of the classes under family class we are doing the processing up to 40% faster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

On behalf of the committee, Minister, I want to thank you for being here today.

As you know, we will hopefully produce a report by Thursday. Thank you for the very valuable information you have given us today.

Thank you, Minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will try to resume our meeting as we continue with part 6 of Bill C-50.

I want to welcome the deputy minister again to our meeting, and also Andrea Lyon, assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and Les Linklater, director general of the immigration branch. Welcome to all of you today.

I don't have to brief you on what the procedure is, so I'll just pass it right over to you, Mr. Fadden, Mr. Linklater, or Andrea.

[Richard Fadden, Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

We thought we would just start with questions, since we are part of the minister's package.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Very good. That's even better.

Maybe I'll go directly to Mr. Bevilacqua, who might have questions for you. I'm sure he does.

The witnesses chose not to go into any statements, which will give us the opportunity to go directly to questions.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

That's a novel approach, but it's welcome.

I guess the question I have to begin with is—and I don't ask this in a facetious way, but a sincere way—how are things going with this bill? You've travelled extensively across the country. You have paid attention to the hearings that are going on in the parliamentary committee. Quite frankly, I know of all your efforts you've made to communicate with Canadians, including with editorial boards. You've done a lot of work on this.

The message that I get, and that we collectively get from people who appear in front of us as witnesses, is not that positive. I mean this in a non-partisan way: there are major, major concerns about the issue of the powers the minister will have. There are major concerns about not just the substance but the way this whole project actually rolled out: introducing it in the budget bill, the lack of consultation, and things being pre-imposed. Right? But those concerns could easily have been erased.

I was struck by something the minister said. She said she wanted to thank the committee for the great work it had done on lost Canadians. It would have been simpler for everybody, and we would probably have achieved a better product, had we been given the same opportunity on this particular file—

[An hon. member]

That's true.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

—because at the end of the day, whether you're sitting on this side or on the other side, the bottom line for us is how to improve the quality of life for people who want to come to Canada and who are in Canada. That's what drives us; that's why we're in public life.

So when things like this happen, I personally feel cheated, in the sense that we were not given the opportunity to contribute as much as we could have. I know the hard work the bureaucracy does on these files, but I just think there would have been a better way to deal with this issue, had the form and the process been a little bit more open, more transparent, and more accountable, and had we, as parliamentarians, been included more.

Quite frankly, we are now left with very little choice, Mr. Chairman, but to say that the vast majority of people who appeared in front of us didn't agree with the bill.

I think we could have done a much better job for the minister had she given us the opportunity to study the issue in depth and to make proposals.

I'd like you to comment on that.

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, let me start with the second part of Mr. Bevilacqua's question.

You're not only an MP, you have an “honourable” before your name, so you will know that it's not appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy.

I think there is a link between their Advantage Canada commitments in the last budget, two budgets ago, and there's an economic component to this, but I simply have to decline comment on that. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy. I think the minister has commented on a couple of occasions, and she has explained it, I think, fairly well.

On the first part of your question, I think my colleagues and I, and the minister, as you say, have gone across the country and have talked to a lot of people. As I think is the case with any kind of legislation like this, the amendments are technical in nature and the bill itself is quite complex. I think there is a mixed reaction. I don't think everybody is in favour, and I certainly don't think everybody is against it.

My sense, as we went across the country, is that as people talked about it and as they came to understand it better, they came to understand the objectives of the government and were broadly supportive.

That's not true across the board. I certainly was told on a couple of occasions that they thought it was the worst idea since the black plague, but I was also told by some stakeholders that it was a very good idea and that it was high time the government did something.

So in terms of the people I spoke to or my colleagues spoke to, I think on balance we would come out with a view that the response was generally positive.

The list the minister was drawing from a few minutes ago I think contained 48 ethnic groups who said they were supportive. So it's not all negative.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

I guess maybe the government side did not invite these groups to appear in front of the committee—

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

They did. They just didn't show up.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

—or maybe they refused to appear. I'm not sure. I'm not passing judgment here. I can only judge from what I heard from the witnesses. As I'm sure you and the department will review the comments, you will find that I don't think I'm misrepresenting the facts as I see them.

I just would have hoped, really, that we could have in fact participated more in this reform. Now, quite frankly, Mr. Fadden, what we're left with is to issue a report in a couple of days that I don't think is going to do justice to the issue at hand, and that's a major concern I have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Bevilacqua.

Mr. St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Bevilacqua's comments. Mention was made of people who have had a change of heart about the bill. However, there are more people who were initially on side and who have now withdrawn their support. The explanation for this, as I see it, is that this bill was initially presented as a means of reducing the backlog, when in fact that isn't the case. Investing more resources and improving productivity will help to reduce the backlog, but overall, changing the selection order of people in the queue will not really change anything.

Regarding the Canada-Quebec Accord that I've discussed with the minister, I didn't want to get into specifics at the time, but I would now like to settle this matter. Clause 188 of the bill introduces section 87.3 of the Act. In my opinion, subsection (3) is the heart of the legislative provision. It states the following:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the processing of applications and requests, including instructions (a) establishing categories of applications or requests to which the instructions apply; (b) establishing an order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or requests; (c) setting the number of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any year; and (d) providing for the disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request.

There are no clear stipulations that these instructions would not target persons selected by the Government of Quebec. The minister said that this was not the intent of the act. If the committee wants to be sure that the current spirit of the Canada-Quebec Accord will be respected and that the minister will not be able to intervene, then a specific provision should be added to clarify that these instructions will not apply to Quebec.

Is my interpretation correct?

[Richard Fadden]

In several respects, Mr. Chairman, your interpretation is correct. As the minister stated, each act is drafted differently. This act does not refer to the federal government's commitments to Quebec, but rather to its obligations towards all provinces.

Over the past few decades, not only has the Government of Canada respected the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord, it has also respected the terms of all other provincial accords. There is nothing in this bill that will interfere with these accords.

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

Does the Canada-Quebec Accord give any indication of what the federal government's processing times should be?

[Richard Fadden]

If memory serves me well, no, it does not. However, the various annexes to the Accord deal with relations between the Quebec department and the federal department. Two committees were established to administer matters arising from the Accord every year.

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

I see.

What if the Standing Committee on Finance—not this committee, since it will not be voting on the bill—were to add a provision stating that under no circumstances shall these instructions apply to the Government of Quebec? Could other instructions designed to move other immigrants to the front of the queue delay the processing of applications from Quebec?