Finance Committee on April 28th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Order, please.

It's 3:30. We have our witnesses with us and we have the members here, so I will call the meeting to order.

With that, we'll ask those who are from the media to leave the room. I appreciate that.

We want to thank the minister, the Honourable Diane Finley, for being here with us. This is our second meeting on the budget bill, Bill C-50. We want to thank her for taking the time to be here and to answer the questions of the committee.

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think out of respect for your kids you should say hi to your son.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Okay, I'll do that.

Actually, my son and daughter-in-law are in the room. They wanted to come, so I do want to thank them for coming to Ottawa and being here.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

They've never seen their dad work before.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Yes, that's right. It's a new thing.

I knew you'd be easy on me after that. I do appreciate that support. Nonetheless, we want to continue with the meeting.

We thank the minister for being here and taking the time. We have her for an hour, and then we have some of her department staff, and you have some of those with you at the present time.

With that, I'm not going to take any more time to introduce anyone here.

We will start with the minister. You have 15 minutes, and then we will move to questions and answers.

The floor is yours, Honourable Minister.

[Diane Finley, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to speak on the immigration provisions of Bill C-50, The Budget Implementation Act 2008. With me today are my Deputy Minister, Mr. Richard Fadden, and my Assistant Deputy Minister, Ms. Andrea Lyon.

Mr. Chair, I am proud to serve as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a government that recognizes that immigration is as important to Canada's future as it has been to our past.

Our country was built on immigration, and our future prosperity and success as a country largely depends on it. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration. By 2012, all of Canada's net labour force growth will come from immigration. The stark reality is that if we do nothing to address the backlog, by 2012 applicants will face a 10-year wait time to have their application processed and the line-up of people waiting to get into Canada could easily reach upwards of 1.5 million.

Now, contrary to the previous government, we do not believe the status quo is acceptable. We are facing real and serious international competition for the talents and the skills that we need to fill the jobs that are waiting to be filled here in Canada. Whereas Australia and New Zealand are processing applications in as little as six months, it can take us up to six years to even begin looking at one's application, let alone to process it. The result is that there are approximately 925,000 people now in line waiting to immigrate to Canada, with almost 600,000 of these people applying in the skilled workers category.

When we compare ourselves to the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand, we are the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen applications. This weakens our ability to select applicants who will be best placed to succeed in our labour market, and as a result, only 10% to 15% of skilled workers admitted here have a job arranged when they arrive, compared to over 80% of similar immigrants going to New Zealand.

This means two things. First, that we risk losing talented people to other countries, talented people that we need, right here in Canada. And second, the current system is preventing immigrants from getting the best possible start in their new lives.

This is unacceptable. It's unfair to our country, it's unfair to immigrants, it's unfair to those waiting for a response to their applications, and it's unfair to the families here. So it's time to act. We have a problem and we need to address it, and that is precisely what we are doing.

Currently we are required by law to completely process every application regardless of how many people apply or how many we're able to accept. And under law we are obliged to process applications in the order in which we receive them, with just a couple of exceptions.

The current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight, so the system needs fixing. Urgent action is required so that we can bring more immigrant families here faster and more skilled workers here sooner.

To address these challenges, we're taking a three-pronged approach. First, we've committed to investing more money to address the backlog--$109 million over five years. This funding will allow us to hire and train more visa officers to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest. But increasing funding alone is not enough. We need to do things smarter, better, and faster.

In addition to increased funding, we're making administrative changes to increase both our efficiency and our effectiveness--sensible things like centralizing processing, improving and enhancing computer systems, sending in SWAT teams to tackle local backlogs where we believe they can make real progress on them, and transferring files from very busy to less busy missions.

Third, through Bill C-50 we've introduced legislative changes that will give us the flexibility and authority to both manage the backlog and set priorities that will match Canada's needs. Our proposed legislation will allow the minister to identify categories of occupations--not individuals--that will be processed on a priority basis, based on our country's needs and not on one's individual place in line.

To make sure we get these categories of occupations right and fair, we're placing several checks and balances on the minister. I like to call these controls the three Cs--the charter, consultations, and cabinet.

The ministerial instructions will, of course, comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They will maintain a system that is universal and non-discriminatory. And these instructions will also require broad input.

We will be required to consult with the provinces and territories, industry, and government departments to shape the approach every step of the way. Our consultations with the provinces will include getting reassurances from them that if regulated professions are on their list, they will have commitments from their provincial regulatory bodies that these individuals will be allowed to work in their chosen fields once they get here.

And finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, and I can assure you from previous experience that that is not a rubber- stamp process.

Some are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the minister, without sufficient accountability. For example, there is a myth out there that the minister will be able to arbitrarily cherry-pick applicants in the queue and override visa officers' decisions on individual cases. This is simply not the case. The legislation will not allow the minister to override or reverse decisions made by visa officers to admit people. Our immigration officers will continue to make decisions about individual applications.

As to concerns being expressed about the impact of this legislation on family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate cases, any instruction from the minister will have to respect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. These objectives include supporting Canada's economy and competitiveness, supporting family reunification, and upholding Canada's humanitarian commitments.

So to be clear, the ministerial instructions will not apply to refugees, protected persons, or humanitarian and compassionate applications made from within Canada.

The instructions must also respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the provincial nominee program and the Canada-Quebec Accord. And to be completely open and transparent, these instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette, on the departmental website, and reported on in Citizenship and Immigration Canada's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament.

But a key change, Mr. Chair, is that under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications not processed in a given year could be held for future consideration or returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee, and they would be welcome to reapply. The result, Mr. Chair, would be that the backlog will stop growing and will actually start to come down.

Some have rightly asked why these immigration provisions have been included in Budget 2008. It's because our government recognizes the critical role of immigration in the Canadian economy. Our government underlined the importance of immigration in our government's blueprint for economic growth and prosperity, known as Advantage Canada, in Budget 2006. The immigration provisions included in Budget 2008 build on what we said we would do in Advantage Canada in Budget 2006.

Advantage Canada acknowledged that people are key to having an economic plan that will make Canada a world leader today and in future generations. That's why we included amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act as part of the budget implementation provisions. Doing so serves the best interests of immigrants and their families, Canadians, and our economy.

So to sum up, Mr. Chair, our proposed measures will give us the flexibility to choose the skilled workers that best fit our needs, without affecting our objectives regarding family reunification or refugee protection.

Ultimately, the measures our government is proposing will ensure fairness by helping us to make decisions on cases faster while meeting the immediate requirements of Canada's labour market.

Our goal, Mr. Chair, is simple: to give Canada some common-sense tools to reduce the immigration backlog; to do it in a way that meets our needs; and to do it in a way that is fair and that respects our laws. It's about a vision for our country that makes sure that people who have gone through so much to get here find the opportunities to build their families, contribute to their communities, and excel in their chosen fields. It is a vision that will allow Canada to develop a system with the flexibility to supply our economy with the people we need to support our growth.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. We would now be happy to take your questions. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Thank you for your presentation.

We'll now move to the question and answer portion. I'll remind the committee that when the minister is here we have all of the opposition and we have a round of seven minutes each. The last time a previous minister came we decided to collectively use five-minute slots. I don't know if that's the way you want to proceed. If not, we'll stay with the standing order.

[Some hon. members]

The standing order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Rob Merrifield]

Fair enough.

Mr. McCallum, you have seven minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, for spending some time with us this afternoon.

I'd just like to begin with statistics from your department and ask you to confirm if you agree with them. In 2005 there were 262,236 landed immigrants; in 2006 there were 251,649; and in 2007 there were 236,689.

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

Those numbers are approximately correct. I don't have the details.

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

If those numbers are correct, why did you state that last year your government brought in 430,00 new Canadians? Does this mean you consider students or temporary workers to be new Canadians?

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

One of the challenges we have is that older applications for permanent residence take almost twice as long to process as new ones, and we have a finite pool of resources--

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

No, I'm just talking about the number, the 430,000.

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

I know. I'm trying to explain the number to you.

That doesn't meet the needs of business, so we've very deliberately expanded the temporary foreign worker program to get the workers here that we need; we can't access them on a skills basis in the current backlog under the current rules. Not only that, but we also include in that foreign students who have come here. As we announced in Budget 2007, both of those streams will be forming part of the Canadian experience class, wherein individuals within those classes will be allowed to apply for permanent residence from within the country.

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

My question is a narrower one. Most people would not define temporary foreign workers or foreign students as new Canadians. Would you include them in the definition of new Canadians?

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

We are making it possible for them to be new Canadians. We are adding them to the stream. We're deliberately blurring the line between permanent and temporary so as to meet the needs of our economy. We've developed a number of programs to make that happen, including the Canadian experience class, which will be launched this summer.

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

I just do not think those people, at the moment of their arrival, are new Canadians. Therefore, I think the 400,000 number is inflated, and the correct numbers are the landed immigrant numbers I quoted.

But let me move on now to questions of money. This is the finance committee. I would have thought that success in cleaning up a backlog requires resources to have more people interviewing and processing those people. I understand you're putting in $22 million over two years, which is little more than 1% of the budget in each year, whereas in 2005 we had committed a $700 million plan to reduce the backlog over five years. There's an order of magnitude difference in the amounts of money. So how can you credibly say that you're going to significantly reduce the backlog when you put so little--in terms of new resources--into the system?

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

Quite frankly, throwing resources at a fundamentally flawed system is just pouring money down the drain. We do need to put more resources into it, but that's not enough. We have to do things smarter and better and faster. That's why we're making administrative changes, upgrading computer systems, and changing our operational techniques for processing.

But the key here is that we cannot control how many applications we receive in a year. They can come flooding in. Indeed, every year we receive more applications than we have the capacity to process, by a significant number, and the existing law requires that we process each and every application, even if it's a second, third, or fourth application that's been waiting in line for somebody who's already been admitted. That's a waste of time, it's a waste of taxpayers' money, and it's certainly not fair to the others who are in the line. So we need to make some structural changes to the system.

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

I don't disagree with structural changes. I would submit that a trivial increase in resources--even with the structural changes-- is not going to make a big dent in the backlog. But I would now like to go on to ask you about family class.

My understanding is that you are saying that in your new rules, which you yourself can determine, you do not intend to include the family class, but the legislation would give you the power to do so if you wished to limit the number of family class people allowed to enter the country.

So I guess my question is this. Is it your intent to not disturb the status quo on family class? If it is your intent, why are you putting these new powers into the bill when you say you will not use them?

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

I'd like to perhaps correct the misperception that was just stated. You said we would be limiting family class. That's not the intention here. When we set priorities on categories, they're to give those groups priority processing. That's a very big distinction here, and I'd like to make sure that we clear up some of the myths that have been propagated.

When we're setting categories, our intention right now is on groups of occupations--ones that meet the country's needs and ones that will be identified and determined only after extensive consultations with the provinces, territories, industry, and other government departments, and then approved by cabinet. The intention is to match the portion of our skilled workers to the economy's needs.

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

Yes, but I guess my point is that when you're putting in negligible additional total resources and when you state clearly that you're giving a high priority to people who meet economic needs, the inference is--in relative terms--that it's a lower priority for family reunification. That is how people are reading it. And I can't see any other way in which to read it. If you have essentially changed resources with a higher priority to one group, it must mean you're fast-tracking one group and you're slow-tracking another group, which is the family class.

So I go back to my question. It seems that if you emphasize the economic side, which is fine, you're putting a high priority on workers. Essentially, you're putting more priority on newcomers as commodities--as workers--rather than newcomers as people. So I ask you again, on the family class, how can you deny the implication that this group is relatively disfavoured when you're putting the maximum favour on the economic class? Why do you insist on new powers in this area?

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

We're actually putting $109 million in extra resources, and most people wouldn't call that either negligible or trivial--

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

It's $22 million over two years.