Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 13th, 2008

[Richard Fadden]

To be honest, Mr. Chairman, we were told we were going to look at Bill C-50. I didn't bring my binder for estimates.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order--rather than taking the seven minutes--each committee is allowed at least one meeting to deal with the estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

So far we have not been able to do so, because, as you recall, last Tuesday....

These estimates are going to the House and they're about to be approved, so I absolutely need answers to some of these questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That's not a valid point of order because we are having the minister back for estimates, and in fairness--

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

We are?

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Yes, we are.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Perfect. Thank you. I'll save those questions for later.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

In fairness to the deputy, I think we'll have to confine it to Bill C-50.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you. I didn't know that.

I will stay with Bill C-50.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Okay.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

On Bill C-50, then, if we are to send information in terms of instructions, why would we not do it through regulations?

[Richard Fadden]

Mr. Chairman, I understand this option was considered. One of the reasons was to provide the minister of the day with as much flexibility as possible.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It looks like the application of these instructions is even beyond the review of the courts. Is that the department's analysis of it?

[Richard Fadden]

No, it absolutely is not. It is quite the contrary.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Are the instructions open to review by the courts? If a person says these instructions are not fair, can this be taken to Federal Court, for example?

[Richard Fadden]

Yes. My understanding is that it is not in IRPA. But that's a very clear provision of the Federal Courts Act, which provides that any administrative decision taken by the federal crown is subject to review by the Federal Court.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Is all the consultation prior to issuance of the instructions done in public, or is it done in private? Would it be tabled, for example, in the House, in this committee? Would it be doable to have the committee make a motion saying that all consultations regarding the minister issuing an instruction will be tabled and subject to some kind of debate in this committee?

[Richard Fadden]

In terms of whether it is doable, I would say that with the consent of those we consult, yes, it is. In respect of consultations with the provinces, their consultations with the federal government are usually confidential. It would require their specific consent to make those consultations public.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have one minute and 25 seconds.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

I still have time. Perfect.

With regard to weeding through the existing 925,000, maybe some of them want to re-apply through this new stream. I see today that there is information that you don't know which skills, so you will have to advertise to say that we now have two streams. One is the old stream and now there is the new stream. Those of you who think your skill is going to leapfrog you in front of everybody can now go to this new stream. Is that how you plan to do this?

[Richard Fadden]

No, I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

Our first task will be to go through the existing backlog and code them against the national occupational code so that we do in fact know who is in the backlog. For those who have expressed a preferred province of destination, it would be our intention to make that known to the provinces so they can take advantage of those who are in the backlog in an immediate way.

To be honest with you, we are not yet at the point of determining exactly how we're going to do any publicity relating to the existing backlog. But I take your point that it's an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you very much. That completes the seven-minute round.

No, it doesn't. Mr. Bezan will complete the seven-minute round.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Thanks.

It's good seeing you again, Mr. Fadden. It's been a while. You used to come to the agriculture committee all the time, and I enjoyed the avenue there when you were still with CFIA.

I see that you have jumped into a pretty big file, one that is quite daunting. I know you can rise to the challenges before you.

Just following up on what Ms. Chow was talking about, there is this whole issue of ministerial instructions. There has been some fearmongering out there that they could be used to discriminate. I want to have you explain to us, at committee here, exactly what terms of openness and consultation are going to be in play to ensure that there are no discriminatory measures taken. And what special emphasis is going to be placed on the inability of the ministerial instructions to discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, ethnic origin, and country of origin?

[Richard Fadden]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First, every decision of the department is subject to the charter, and I would point out that IRPA actually says that in section 3. It says that every decision taken under the authority of the act is subject to the non-discriminatory provisions in the charter.

We are also subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. We're subject to general principles of administrative law that prevent us from discriminating. I think it would be fair to say that the department does not now discriminate, and we would not in the future.

If there is any evidence of discrimination, as I was saying in response to Ms. Chow, there is a provision in the Federal Courts Act to require the department to cease the discrimination. There is fundamentally no difference between the treatment of the ministerial instructions before you and other instructions that can be issued under this act, any regulations that can be issued under this act, or in fact the provisions of this act. They're all subject to the charter and they're all subject to judicial review.