Finance Committee on April 28th, 2008

[Andrea Lyon]

I think what the minister was referring to in her press release was the fact that in the year 2007 there was a record number of people who entered Canada under a variety of different classes. Yes, there was a large increase in temporary foreign workers year over year, reflecting a fairly large economic growth in some--

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I wouldn't disagree that a large number of people entered Canada, but my point is they were not new Canadians. It is inaccurate to say 400,000 new Canadians, is it not?

[Andrea Lyon]

I'm not going to comment on the accuracy or inaccuracy of that.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay. I'll move on.

[An hon. member]

Who is going to comment on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

I think this question was there. I believe you're talking about a definition. Is a student...? I'm just trying to interpret what I've heard here, and what I heard was that the definition of whether you call a student a Canadian, in Canada or not, was the issue. But go ahead.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Well, maybe I'll move on to a different subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Mr. McCallum, you can make that issue in another forum than this one, but carry on.

[Andrea Lyon]

Can I respond to that, Mr. Chairman, in terms of what you said there, in terms of a Canadian? There is of course a separate process, as members know, leading to citizenship. So there are various points on the continuum, beginning from a temporary foreign worker or a student, that can allow people to gain permanent residency, and then thereafter, should they meet application processes, to in fact become a Canadian.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Right, but I think you would agree that upon point of entry, a foreign student is not a new Canadian.

[Andrea Lyon]

Not on point of entry, no.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay, good, because she said there were 400,000 new Canadians who had entered.

So that solves that one. Let me now go on.

I'll change the subject. The minister spoke a lot about using her new ministerial instruction powers to choose certain classes of immigrants based on their skills. My question is whether these clauses also give the minister the authority to pick which applications do or don't get considered in the family class. For example, could a future minister--not “would”, but “could” a future minister--issue a ministerial instruction to not process grandparent or parent reunification applications?

[Andrea Lyon]

It would not give the minister that authority, insofar as it is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which, for one, requires the government to ensure that the immigration program supports economic competitiveness and family reunification, and that it also provides protection to those in need. The minister also talked about the potential to use the instruction process as a way to attach priority processing to certain groups, as indeed is our intention with respect to those occupations.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

It would be possible, then, to attach a higher priority to occupations A, B, and C and a low priority to family reunification.

[Andrea Lyon]

No, because she must, and we must, make sure there is a balance across those three objectives of economic competitiveness, family reunification, and protection to those in need. It is not one at the expense of the other.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Is she bound by certain percentages of family versus economic?

[Andrea Lyon]

No, the statute does not specify certain percentages. But she is required to abide by that objective that's laid out in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

All right, but that's a general objective. She could claim that she was still pursuing a policy of balance and put a higher priority on economic immigrants to certain trades and, implicitly or explicitly, a lower priority on family reunification. Is that not right?

[Andrea Lyon]

I think it's also useful to point out that at the moment we have established some priority processing for certain family classes. Indeed, the processing of those tends to proceed on a fairly expeditious basis. What we're faced with is a backlog of some 600,000 in the federal skilled worker category, where the processing times, as the minister described, can be up to six years. You can almost look at it as a way of ensuring that the economic side is gaining the same sort of priority that the family class is currently receiving.

That is one way of looking at these amendments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you very much. Your time is gone.

Mr. Wallace, you have five minutes.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for joining us today. I wasn't ready when they came to us before, but I have a few questions for you today.

Are there any changes you would recommend, from a staff perspective, to anything in Bill C-50, since that's what we're actually here to discuss? Are there any minor changes at all that we need to implement to achieve what we are trying to accomplish? Is what's in the implementation bill satisfactory to the staff's requirements to make that happen?

[Andrea Lyon]

From our perspective, it will provide us with that additional flexibility we require in order to bring the Canadian system up to the level of some of our competitors, those other immigrant-receiving countries such as Australia and New Zealand. We think it will provide (a) the sort of budgetary investments that will be helpful, and (b) correct some of those structural deficiencies that currently exist in the legislation.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Let's guess that this bill actually passes and assume we get it through the House of Commons and the Senate. In terms of implementation, what's the timeframe for making these changes that are required?

[Andrea Lyon]

The minister has talked as well about the instruction process requiring a fairly broad consultation with interested stakeholders. Once the legislation is passed, assuming it is passed, we will then need to engage in that consultative process with those stakeholders. I would include among them the provinces, the territories, business groups, labour groups, and other interested parties who are probably very well placed to give us a sense of those occupations that are a high priority for Canada.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Using this as an example, I met recently with laboratory medical professionals who work basically at hospital labs, carrying out the medical tests that your doctor or nurse orders, and who then give the results to the doctor. About 20% of their staffing comes from immigrants at this point. They have to meet the qualifications, of course, but they are desperate for additional people, and one of the solutions--only one part of the solution--is to maybe attract more laboratory professionals from overseas.

As their MP, what would you recommend I tell them in terms of a timeframe? Are they looking at this time next year, or two years from now? Based on your experience, what do you think is the real timeframe to actually seeing some tangible results for Canada?