Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Richard Fadden]

I saw references to that, Mr. Chairman.

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

It was your top bureaucrats—as a matter of fact, the ones who occupy Ms. Lyon's position and Mr. Linklater's position—who were cited in the judgment.

[Richard Fadden]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

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

Did the bureaucracy ever come forward to the committee to apologize?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, I was not the deputy then and I have no knowledge.

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

Well, let me say to you they did not.

Had I read the judgment before, I probably would have asked the committee to find contempt of Parliament, because I think the Dragan decision certainly would have supported it. I say to my colleagues, pick it up and read it.

Mr. Fadden, since the time of Lucienne Robillard as minister, how many deputy ministers have we had in the department?

[Richard Fadden]

I don't know, Mr. Chairman.

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

Maybe you can provide that information.

[Richard Fadden]

I'd be glad to, Mr. Chairman.

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

This is just like the other information that was asked for by Mr. Karygiannis. When I was parliamentary secretary, we used to get a clipping service, so it's no big deal. The money is already spent on doing a clipping service and the bureaucracy could easily make those things available.

I'm going to go back to 2002 because it was a critical time. Setting up the point system was done by the bureaucrats, by the bureaucracy, and it was done through regulation. Interestingly enough, the recent study looking at Australia points out that we blew it, and I will say the bureaucracy blew it, because people that the economy needed.... We at the committee at the time, and the chair, were very clear that what we were going to do was create an elitist system whereby people like Frank Stronach, Frank Hasenfratz, Mike Lazaridis, and all sorts of other very successful people would not get into the country because the system became so elitist.

Australia saw that; our bureaucracy didn't. Now I think it's important that we recognize that there's a real reason for the objectivity of the point system, because in particular the immigration department...and I direct you to read Whence They Came: Deportation from Canada, 1900 -1935. In his foreword, Irving Abella says:

Until recently, immigration policy was largely in the hands of a small number of bureaucrats. Throughout most of our history this tiny group, almost by default, orchestrated our immigration policies.

I see very much the same thing happening, but the reason we have an objective system is that the mistakes of the past aren't repeated. Now, you might say that whatever you do is charter-compliant. Well, the security certificate for almost a quarter of a century was not charter-compliant. That's how long it took to get to the Supreme Court: almost a quarter of a century. So for a quarter of a century, injustices were perpetrated. The citizenship revocation, the way it sits right now, is not charter-compliant, and if it ever gets to.... All the decisions related to it dealing with the charter came down on that point.

So many a time the bureaucracy abuses its position in terms of dealing with people's lives. My question is this. What has your department done internally to recognize the mistake it made by devising this very elitist point system that has essentially created a crisis?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

The time is up, but I guess we should give Mr. Fadden time for a brief response here. I would remind members that if you have five or seven minutes, if you go the full five or seven minutes, then you can't really expect a response from the people you're questioning. But it's only fair; we do have some time, and I guess we have to give Mr. Fadden some time for a response.

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand Mr. Telegdi's concern, but I do not agree with his premise that the bureaucracy has set up and dealt with the point system by itself. The point system is subject to ministerial review. It has been talked about in this committee. It was changed once or twice when the Liberal government was in power. This government has thought about changing it once or twice. I've had two ministers since I've been deputy here, and neither of them is a pushover, and I couldn't change the point system on my own if I wanted to.

So I do not agree with your view that the bureaucrats are running the department.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Mr. Fadden.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

Yes. When—

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

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

A point of order, Mr. Karygiannis.

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

When I put it to him, the deputy minister declined to answer my question about advice given to the minister and how many times they took it or not, and yet now the deputy minister made a statement, which I would consider to be political, regarding whether or not the ministers are pushovers. So either he's neutral or he's not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not really a point of order, and I would remind the member that of the last two ministers, one was Conservative and one was Liberal.

No? Both Conservative, were they? Oh, yes, they were.

In any event, it's not a point of order.

Mr. Komarnicki.

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

I'm happy to see it doesn't come off my time. That's a good decision.

There is obviously a concern by many that our system is not flexible and does not respond to the economic needs of the country, and with the current legislation the backlog has grown to be what appears to be, by anyone's estimation, almost unmanageable, 900,000-plus and growing. Proceeding through Bill C-50 by way of instruction as opposed to amendments to the act or regulations, in your opinion—either of you here—how is what's happening in Bill C-50 allowing the system to be more responsive? And would it be more responsive than the other methods or not? Would you care to comment on that?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, I think it's fair to say that the current system doesn't contain a great deal of flexibility at all. We have to process every application we receive in the order in which it's received, although there are some exceptions to that.

Given that that's the case, somebody who may have applied four years ago, thinking that he or she might have a connection with the Canadian economy, by the time the four years go by there's no real connection. The difference in the proposal the government has brought forward is that once the instructions are in place we will be able to extract from applications received those people with occupational categories who have a direct link with labour force demand. I think the other difference we will have, since we are not going to be required to process every application we receive, is we'll be able to maintain a system, and our objective is to deal with applications within one year of receipt to try to mirror what Australia and New Zealand are doing.

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

Would proceeding by way of ministerial instructions, subject to consultation and subject to the various charter protections, be a quicker or easier response than proceeding by way of legislative amendment?

[Richard Fadden]

The entire construct of IRPA is to set out a framework that allows the government of the day to deal with the ebb and flow of demand for immigration. The fact that the government of the day has to table in the House every year the projected numbers that are going to be admitted is a good example. If every year the government had to go through a full legislative process of three hearings in each House, with everything that entails, to determine these kinds of detailed decisions, I think it would have the practical effect of significantly slowing down the process. The idea of allowing for instructions is simply to be able to say to the department on something like a yearly basis that we have to move from 12 o'clock to 3 o'clock and we have to do it fairly quickly.

As some of the members have suggested, one of the characteristics of the legislative system is that it is deliberative, it allows for time, and it allows for discussion. But there are some aspects--I would argue public administration and management--that require faster movement. That's why a large number of acts of Parliament provide either for regulations or for ministerial instructions.

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

So are you saying then that IRPA, as it was designed, contemplated the kinds of actions that are being taken by way of the amendment providing for the instruction? Or was it designed for that kind of inaction?

[Richard Fadden]

I think broadly speaking it is. A couple of provisions in the act now allow the minister to issue instructions. Those are specified in the law, and they're a large area of the administration of the act that is simply done administratively. So it is consistent with the broad construction of the act.

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

Ms. Lyon, do you have a comment on that, or would you have a comment on any of my questions?