Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 6th, 2010

[Sandra Harder]

At this point even saying that it may only be two or three years may be a shorter timeframe than we might be thinking of. The oversight function of the federal government in the context of the bill, if adopted, provides authority for the minister to actually seek information from the body itself on how it's operating. It does give the minister that authority to request certain information about the governance of the body, how it's operating, how it's functioning, how responsive it is to complaints that are under investigation inside the body. It does give the minister that greater oversight, and until such time as the legislation would be changed or amended, that oversight would continue.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thanks.

I agree with one aspect of Mr. Trudeau's comments, which is--and I want to pursue this a little bit further, as well—that this organization is going to need assistance. To paint a picture in which the new regulatory body is going to be set up and is then going to be able to act independently is simply unfair to the organization because of the immensity of the responsibilities and because currently this is really not yet in place.

I wonder if you could comment a little further on the importance of the relationship and, from a financial perspective, on the actual costs or assistance that will be provided through the young life of the organization, certainly in the first two, three, four, or whatever number of years will be necessary to get it up and fully functioning and running.

[Catrina Tapley]

Mr. Chairman, I guess we would say succinctly that we agree that indeed this is what is envisaged. If I could speak a little more fully to this, I think we saw that this enhanced oversight would continue probably past the point where the regulator became fully functioning so that the minister and the department--and through the minister, Parliament--had some confidence in the system and confidence in the body that is proposed in the bill.

We dealt a little bit earlier with the question of ongoing costs, but as for what's proposed for funding for that interim period, I think we've left it pretty open at this point. Details on the amount and types of expenses, along with the time period for such financial support, would be included. That is something we have deliberately left a bit open. I think we'll continue to evolve as we look at the applications that come in against what we've indicated in that first call for proposals.

I don't know if Ms. MacNeil would like to comment further on that.

[Brenna MacNeil]

No, I think the call for proposals leaves it open to the organization to demonstrate what its needs will be. That's what will be examined—what the organization itself identifies as its needs.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I don't know how much time I have left, Mr. Chair, but I do note that we have officially begun the process of working through the call for proposals and how it would work. Perhaps you could update the committee as to where we are in terms of the process on that side of things, with things having been gazetted and being somewhat official already. Perhaps you could bring the committee up to speed on how far we've come already.

[Sandra Harder]

On June 12 we published in the Canada Gazette the notice of intent to proceed with this process, and we solicited public comments on the considerations that were outlined in the first notice of intent. Having had some time and having looked at the input we received through that process, we then developed the factors—that's what we're calling them—and those became the basis for the subsequent August 28 publication in the Canada Gazette, which dealt with a call for proposals--for lack of a better term--from persons, bodies, and representatives who would feel themselves capable of taking on this role. As my colleague Brenna has said, one of the things we wanted to avoid was a kind of checklist approach, so we wanted bodies and organizations that might come forward to be able to demonstrate how they would meet those five factors and to be able to talk to us about their experience and their own viability to provide the kind of regulatory body that we would anticipate would be required.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Harder and Mr. Dykstra.

That concludes the seven-minute rounds. We're now into five-minute rounds.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Did the department do a financial viability study for this regulatory board?

[Sandra Harder]

Do you mean an actual viability study of a possible new organization?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Yes.

[Sandra Harder]

No.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Why not?

[Sandra Harder]

As I said, in the process of putting forward the actual factors we're looking for in assessing a possible new organization or existing body, we wanted to lay out the factors we thought were important. Viability is certainly one of those factors.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

If there isn't financial viability, it means that this whole process may be wasted. It seems to be a key component, especially with the commentary.

We heard about the parliamentary secretary's discomfort. He stated that it appears this sort of board might require two, three, four years--who knows how long--of subsidization by the government. So it seems that a proper study and comparison weren't done.

The committee recommended a statutory board. What would be the cost of a statutory board of the type recommended by the committee for the purposes intended? Do we have a number or approximate range?

[Sandra Harder]

I am probably not in a position to give you an exact number, but I know there have been estimates that would take us into the millions of dollars. Certainly that would be not only a costly process--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So we don't have actual numbers you can provide us with.

[Sandra Harder]

I do not.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

So we don't have numbers for the variant that's been proceeded with, and we don't have numbers on what would have been the proposal from the committee. It almost sounds like a decision was kind of made on the fly, without actually having hard evidence.

[Catrina Tapley]

I think I'd like to come back to the beginning of your question and talk about where the onus was placed. We placed the onus on those who wanted to submit an application--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I didn't ask about onus. I asked whether a financial viability study had been done, and the answer was no.

[Catrina Tapley]

The answer is no.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Let me proceed further. We didn't do a financial comparison of the options available. The government proceeded and published in the Canada Gazette in June. In fact they went ahead on August 28, without even tabling the legislation, under the assumption I guess that this committee or the House of Commons would have no changes to the legislation. They just went ahead under the assumption that they were going to get their way, exactly the way the legislation would be presented, irrespective of what the committee had suggested.

We've had a bit of time go by. Have there been any submissions from interested parties?

[Brenna MacNeil]

There have not been any to date, but the deadline is December 29.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I understand that, but there's been quite a bit of time.

How many requests for additional information have there been from different bodies?

[Brenna MacNeil]

I don't believe there have been any.

Just to address your first point, I think it's a good opportunity to clarify the two processes. We went forward with a public selection process under existing authorities. Under the current regulations there's recognition of the Canadian Society of Immigration Consultants, so there's power to recognize the governing body for immigration consultants. That's the process we're following on that public selection process. It's under current authorities. It doesn't require the bill.