Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 12th, 2008

[Warren Creates]

It was CTV actually. It was Paul Hunter on CTV.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Was it CTV? You said it was a very clever landmark change in overhauling the immigration program--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order.

Sorry; I only have twelve minutes left, and I have to go four, four, and four now. We'll have to get back to you.

Mr. Telegdi.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Ryan, we heard a lot of witnesses, while we were going across the country, who were critical of your organization, and I just want to remind you, as we said at the time, that people giving evidence do so under parliamentary protection, so we do not want any gag law or disciplinary action applied. I just want to make sure that you know that.

I don't want a response. I'm just letting you know what was said when we were on the road.

In terms of something being charter-compliant, the security certificate has not been charter-compliant for 25 years. The parliamentary secretary keeps bringing this up, but the reality is that it took 25 years to get it before the Supreme Court before it was ruled on. So we don't want to have an injustice perpetrated for 25 years without having it addressed.

We have created a real crisis, under this government, in the Immigration and Refugee Board. We had the backlog down to 18,000. Now it's going to go over 60,000 this year, and it's going to go to 70,000 next year. The bureaucracy has really created a crisis, and I expect that at some point they're going to say let's get rid of it and let the bureaucrats handle it.

I'm going to go back to 2002, because I was actually here when we dealt with that immigration act, and I saw what the committee did. We all agreed on the committee when that was put in place that the point system was way too elitist, and people like trades folks would never get in. I think that's where the problem was created.

When I look at the bureaucrats, they attempted to take the new point system at 75 points and apply it to the backlog. It was all about the bureaucracy trying to get rid of the backlog. It didn't work. They didn't listen to the committee. They ignored the parliamentary committee. They ended up going to court and Justice Kelen, under the Dragan decision, made them reverse it. But the bureaucrats created a system that became way too elitist, and it did not respond to what the economy needed. I say to my colleagues on this committee that they should read the Dragan decision, because it outlines how the bureaucrats misled this committee.

The issue I want to bring up is that there was a study commissioned by the government, which was released today, and it was done under the auspices of the now right-wing Institute for Research on Public Policy. I have looked at it. It makes comparisons with the system in Australia, and from what I gather....

I hope you get a chance to read it. It was done by Professor Hawthorne.

[Warren Creates]

I have it.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Okay, so you just got that today.

[Warren Creates]

I got it at lunch today, as did you.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

I wonder, if you had a chance to read it, if you could comment on it. But it seems to me what we must do is have a point system where—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

If you're asking Mr. Creates for a comment, there are only 30 seconds left.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

—everybody is included and work with that, but giving more for jobs and what have you, and make sure that we get people here that the economy actually needs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay, 20 seconds, Mr. Creates, or whoever.

[Warren Creates]

I regret that none of us in this room have had the opportunity to read this academic study comparing Canada with Australia. What I received when this was released today was an overview of it, and I was very impressed that it was done, and I was also impressed with the similarities between the two systems.

What I learned is that Australia has taken a more proactive role and raised the points, and that's why I made my comment earlier. I went back to my office and made a change to my brief, which I had filed at this committee last week.

If Australia, as a very similar country with a very similar program, raised the point system and they're getting better-qualified immigrants, with more skills, who integrate more quickly and have higher annual incomes than us—we have a reverse trend, actually, with a bigger problem—

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to go to Mr. Carrier.

[Warren Creates]

—then let's look at that and see what we can do that's similar.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Carrier, four minutes, please.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to welcome the witnesses.

My first question is for Mr. Qayyum, from the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants.

I was surprised to hear that you had congratulated the minister for having presented this bill, the aim of which is to reduce the backlog by simply eliminating applications at the minister's whim, rather than increasing the department's efficiency in order for it to process a greater number of applications.

Given that you yourself represent the consultants, it seems to me that this is counter to the very interests of your own members. You seem to be rather in favour of eliminating applications, perhaps because there are too many of them and that it would make things simpler for you.

Would you have a comment to make in this regard? Do you not believe that filling the 50 vacant commissioner positions the department presently has would accelerate the processing of applications and give a broader mandate to your members?

[Imran Qayyum]

Thank you for the question.

From what I've read, Bill C-50 is part of a three-pronged approach to dealing with the backlog. One of the prongs of this approach will be to put aside $109 million to immigration. Another aspect is to train officers—bring in new officers—to tackle the backlog, and also to appoint SWAT teams to go after the backlog in high-density consulates. The final part is what's happening in Bill C-50.

Given that, I will restate our position that we are willing to give the minister the benefit of the doubt at this time.

[John P. Ryan]

I think it's important to add, Mr. Carrier, if I may--

I thank you very much for your question

—that we're here as a regulator. We're talking about consumer protection and the issue of the people who will be in the fore-log and the backlog unless the Government of Canada puts in a management system that is efficient.

We look at what the minister has brought forward as being a reasonable compromise, as a public regulator.

I just want to point out that as a regulator, we treat our members with absolute respect and due process, and aren't engaging in, as your colleague has alluded to, retribution and retaliation. I just want to assure the committee of that.

[Robert Carrier, Bloc, Alfred-Pellan, QC]

I would like to ask one final question.

Earlier, during our previous round table discussion, we were wondering how it is that the minister came up with such a bill. The witnesses mentioned that it most probably came from bureaucrats, from public servants.

Personally, I fail to see what interest public servants would see in giving the minister instructions in order to eliminate applications. I would like to hear your reaction to this hypothesis.

[Warren Creates]

I like your question.

This is my answer. I've been doing this for 22 years. That's as long as the lifers have been in the bureaucracy. The immigration officers are there for their careers, and they move up through the ranks and become directors, directors general, assistant deputy ministers, and so forth. They're there for their entire careers.

The ministers just come and go. They're there for eight months sometimes, ten months, twelve months, fifteen months, two years. Very few last longer than three years—very, very few.

So it's the top brass in the department who develop their ideas on what kind of program, what kind of Canada, they want to have. Let's not forget that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I have to stop you there. We have four minutes left.

[Warren Creates]

And they corrupt the ministers into developing the system that they want.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Order, please!

[Warren Creates]

They're way ahead of the minister on the learning curve.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Creates, when the gavel goes down, you're to stop, please.