Finance Committee on April 28th, 2008

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

So it is new in Canada, but not elsewhere. Given the importance of this process and this radical change, you must have been required to produce, within the department, notes and studies and prepare arguments to justify why the minister is asking for amendments to the immigration system and even new powers. You must have examined that.

[Andrea Lyon]

Actually, if you go to the CIC website, you'll find a good deal of that information up there. Some of the rationale for the amendments, for the budgetary investments, and indeed for the kinds of things the minister was talking about this afternoon form the basis of the analysis we did that appears on our website.

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

I am convinced that all proposals from officials to a minister contain arguments in favour of the proposals as well as other arguments outlining the disadvantages and dangers of moving in that direction. The minister then makes a decision based on both sets of arguments.

What disadvantages and dangers did you share with the minister before making a greater commitment to this process?

[Andrea Lyon]

I'm not going to get into breaching confidence in terms of advice to ministers.

One of the factors we looked at very seriously was the consequence of doing nothing over the next few years. With the prospect of having the backlog grow from its current size, which is already fairly daunting, up to over 1.5 million potential applications, with wait times associated with them of some 10 years, that was a fairly motivating factor in identifying a solution that would help the government begin to tackle the backlog and make the system more competitive with some of the other countries that are currently having more success in terms of newcomers.

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

Did you propose other scenarios to the minister and arrive at the same outcome? Would other scenarios or other options have made it possible to achieve similar results?

[Andrea Lyon]

There are always other options one can examine. As I said, I'm not going to disclose ministerial confidences in this forum. But certainly if you look at some of the academic papers or at what some other countries have done, they may or may not necessarily be portable to the Canadian scene and respond to some of the Canadian demands. We also have a fairly unique system in that the constitutional responsibility for immigration is shared jointly with the provinces. That also weighs in terms of the options we pursue and look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Mr. Dykstra. The floor is yours for five minutes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Through you, Chair, I've had a chance to look through Bill C-50 and through all the materials the ministry has provided. I've heard Ms. Chow say it, I've heard members of the Bloc say it, I've heard members of the Liberal Party say it, and I've heard obviously not just Ms. Chow but other members of the NDP Party say that this part of the bill is built on Conservative ideology. I wonder if you could tell me where in this document you as ministry officials put those two words. I can't find them.

[Andrea Lyon]

I can only really speak to what the intent is from an official's perspective. Our primary concern is ensuring that the system operates as efficiently and responsibly as it can. Our view is that the sorts of amendments that have been put forward, most notably the fact that we no longer would be required to process all applications, will give us that agility to make the system more modern and more responsive to deal with labour market pressures, but also ensuring and applying the human capital model that we have over the longer term, the sorts of skill sets that Canada will need in the coming years. So I can only comment on what....

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Sure. Thank you. That is very helpful.

Your position and the advice—and I don't want to get into the advice because I realize it's confidential. But the way you have put this forward, in terms of moving this part of the bill, has been to do...I guess more than what Mr. McKay is suggesting, which is that we do nothing. These changes, these amendments, from your perspective, from a ministry perspective, are to improve the way we deal with the issue of immigration.

[Andrea Lyon]

That's correct. We're operating as well within a framework that you're familiar with, in terms of the overall levels we need to attain each year, and that is set out in the annual plan. So everything we do in terms of the exercise of these instructions must be seen in the context of those overall levels. That ultimately is going to be what guides us as we pursue this, and we think these amendments will allow us to respond much more flexibly than we're able to today.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

The third and final question I have is with respect to the comments being made that somehow this gives the minister some carte blanche ability to be the self-professed “chooser” of who comes into this country and who does not. Can you clarify that this has been stated by the opposition parties and also by some members of interest groups that have moved in on this in terms of debate? It has been healthy debate, there is no question about it. Can you explain how that is or is not the case with respect to the amendments in this legislation, that it does not or perhaps does...? Let us know whether it does or does not give the minister sweeping powers to let anyone into the country that she wishes.

[Andrea Lyon]

It does not give the minister that sort of unfettered discretion at all.

It is framed by a number of important realities, which I will just go through very quickly, if I may. One of them is the annual levels exercise, so whatever we do on the instructions must be consistent with the overall levels the Government of Canada will have determined, and those are published every year and tabled in the House of Commons. It also must be consistent with those objectives in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that I talked about earlier, so economic competitiveness, family reunification, and providing protection to those in need. Very importantly, it must be consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Everything we do must be consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that explicitly prohibits any form of discrimination.

The instructions will be the subject of consultations with provinces, with territories, with industry groups, with labour groups, and other stakeholders to make sure we have it right when we go through that process of identifying what sorts of priorities we want to accord among certain occupational groups.

Finally, on the transparency side, the minister has committed to having the document go through cabinet (a) to have it published in the Canada Gazette and (b) to have it published on the CIC website and included in the annual levels document.

The point the minister made in her remarks is also worth underscoring, and that is about an allegation that the minister would be able to override a decision of a visa officer. That is incorrect. Once the decision is taken with respect to a priority, it is the visa officer who must go through the process and examine it, to determine whether or not the point systems have been made...and all those other standard processes involved.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much.

We'll now move to Ms. Hall Findlay.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Thanks, guys.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

She's almost official. Go ahead.

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

Can we say the chairman is biased?

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Just hush, okay? I'm about to ask my question.

Ms. Lyon, my understanding is that with these changed rules, if you are applying on humanitarian and compassionate grounds but are living abroad, you will no longer be eligible to apply to come to Canada. In the words of one department official, this is a tool to protect the integrity of the system. Is that your understanding?

[Andrea Lyon]

It is not. That particular clause you are citing is not a blanket prohibition.

When considering that particular amendment and H and Cs, humanitarian and compassionate applications, we did distinguish between those made in Canada and those abroad. The reason the legislation expressly prohibits the instructions applying to those in Canada is that some unique circumstances may arise with respect to those people who are affected by it--they are established here, they have children here, occupations, etc.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes, but the concern is the prohibition on the ones outside the country.

[Andrea Lyon]

It's not a prohibition. What the legislation does is give visa officers the discretion to deny this in circumstances, so it's not an outright prohibition. But it could apply in those circumstances where it might otherwise be used as a way to circumvent the priority occupations list.

For example, if somebody applies as profession X, and profession X is not on the priorities list, and then they subsequently seek H and C application status abroad, the officer would have that discretion.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

But is there any requirement that the discretion that is allowed would in fact be used on that basis as opposed to being used for any other reasons? I ask that because the language of its being a tool to protect the integrity of the system raises eyebrows here, and I think it raises a significant number of eyebrows elsewhere in the country, and I would suggest for good reason.

Again, there is concern about discretion. Is it your understanding that the discretion would have to be used in a case such as you just described, where somebody has applied only after not being accepted under another basis?

[Andrea Lyon]

Certainly, the intention of that particular provision is not to deny H and C access to those deserving of H and C. Those people deserving of it will continue to have their applications heard in the normal manner and normal fashion.

[Martha Hall Findlay, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

But it's not clear that this is the intention. Is there anything in the provisions that actually clarifies that rather than just a blanket discretion to somehow protect the integrity, there are actually parameters or details in the provisions to specify that the intention—if I turn it around—is in fact to continue to accept people who are applying from abroad on legitimately humanitarian and compassionate grounds?