Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 17th, 2011

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, but of course your leader did propose that we should be able to do so in response to the Haiti situation. He suggested special measures to allow the sponsorship of aunts and uncles, nieces and nephews, and we felt that would create a really problematic precedent that would be unfair to all the other immigrants.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Right now I'm worried about the mythology out there. You said your concern is for economic immigrants. You have a concern that those would be people who are not working in the active workforce or paying taxes, drawing down on health care and social benefits.

There is a sense out there that people don't know that if we sponsor a grandparent or a parent for ten years, that person has a financial responsibility to ensure the person is not a burden on our provincially funded social services system, and yet you seem to imply that these people are milking the system.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, I don't imply that. You're putting words in my mouth that I've never uttered or implied.

Having said that, first of all, it's clear that if you talk to provincial ministers you'll find they have always had concerns about being able to execute undertakings that are given to us about underwriting costs related to health care. Second, many of the people who arrive in the parental or grandparental category are relatively young. They can be as young as 55, so they might have many years in our public health care system. As you know, Mr. Oliphant, the most expensive years for health care are the last years of one's life.

Common sense tells us that younger immigrants are more likely to pay taxes and be a net contributor to our general commonwealth, as opposed to older immigrants, who are more likely to represent a net fiscal cost. That is not to say we ought not to accept any older immigrants, but it is a factor that we obviously should consider.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Of course we should, but I'll speak for my riding: the economics are such that we have people who have immigrated to Canada from India and they are now looking at your numbers for India for grandparents and parents. They see their parents and grandparents contributing to the economy because of the failure of this government in child care, for instance, and they're hoping that the parents and grandparents can help with child care. That is part of the economics of their family.

We have new Canadians who are coming in on subsistence-level jobs, survival jobs--taxi drivers, security guards--and they're struggling to keep ahead, even though they've come in on the point system, which does need review, we know. But they see the parents and grandparents as part of the economic formula. They don't see this as a drag on society; they see it as an investment in the way the family unit cares for our economy. So it is an economic issue.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

There is an issue of externalities, Mr. Chairman. That family doesn't pay all the associated costs. We do, as taxpayers.

This is very simple. The Immigration Act, which was adopted in 2002 by the previous Liberal government, said that spouses and children are the top priority when it comes to family reunification and not parents and grandparents. For fairly obvious reasons, Parliament decided that. What we are saying here is that in order to allow for an increase in the number of spouses and children, that has to be offset on the parental and grandparental category.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

An adoption is--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Oliphant, you have to give him a chance to answer the question.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I do have to say that it is frankly unfair and a little disingenuous when you're talking about immigration levels and immigration planning to cherry-pick particular categories without considering the overall impact. So I would invite you, Mr. Oliphant, or any member, to submit to me what you think our overall levels should look like. Should there be a higher percentage of seniors? Should more than two-thirds of the immigrants be family members? If that is your view, fine. It's a legitimate view. Let us know.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

But, sir, we spoke to officials from around the world on Tuesday and we understand there are inventories in every category everywhere. So the targets are politically set. People who are waiting for seven years or nine years or fourteen years now under this system are now worrying that they're not going to let people in because there is an artificial target being set.

We don't understand why it's being set and where you get your analysis about why we can't cope with certain categories and we can cope with others. There's a black box, and somehow a decision is made in there that isn't made based on inventories, requests, decisions, or even employers' needs. We had employers this week saying that they don't have enough skilled workers, that they don't have enough people to do the work to keep the economy going.

So I'm not sure that trade-off is real. It's quick and it's a good sound bite, but I don't see how the trade-offs are really working.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Mr. Chairman—

I'm sorry. Are you cutting me off?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The problem is that he asks the question for...a minute, and there's no time.

I'll allow you to answer the question.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I'll try to be brief.

Mr. Chairman, the process of levels planning is not quick, it's not political, it's not arbitrary; it's a long arduous process. It takes about nine months. There are widespread consultations with provinces, academics, statisticians, stakeholders, employers, unions. All of that is fed into a process that is led by the department. They come forward.... Yes, ultimately the overall levels plan goes to cabinet; it is then presented to Parliament. But then the particular targets within it are assessed by the officials according to such factors as inventories and the number of applications.

Pulling the camera back, Mr. Oliphant has pointed to some employers wanting more federal skilled workers. Eight of the ten provinces want significantly more provincial nominees. Refugee advocates want more refugees. Many families in Canada want more family members, more parents and grandparents. You have all of these countervailing pressures, and one has to make choices.

The easy thing to do is sit on the sidelines and say this one should be higher and that one should be higher. What you would end up with is an immigration level that is unsustainable.

We now have the highest relative level of immigration in the developed world, with the largest level of intake last year in 57 years and the second-highest level of intake in nine decades. We had the majority of Canadians, 77%, in a poll last September say that immigration levels should either be kept the same or decreased. In Mr. Oliphant's own province of Ontario, only 15% say that overall levels should be increased. So we have to keep in mind public opinion. We ought not to be arrogant and dismiss it.

Taking all of that into account, we've come up with a plan that balances economic, family class, and humanitarian in a way that I think is the best response we can make to the expectations of people.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Members, one of the problems is that we ask questions until the seven minutes are up, but then we have to have an answer. In the future, I'm going to start cutting you off, if you ask a question, or there will be no time for an answer.

I wasn't criticizing you, Mr. Minister. You're doing a fine job.

Monsieur St-Cyr....

Do you have a point of order?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Yes.

To answer your question on the map, blue represents orientation services, yellow is welcoming communities, which is a very general orientation service—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Maybe you could start again.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Blue is orientation, very general; yellow is welcoming communities, a program; purple is language skills—that's often the core service—and the green is a labour market access service, which is training people how to write résumés and find jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.

Since we are talking about appropriations, I would like to discuss the cost of the legal proceedings in connection with the so-called guerrilla war that the department is waging against French at the IRB in Montreal .

Most probably you read about this case in the newspapers. You may recall that an IRB hearing was being conducted in French and the interpreter working into French clearly was not qualified to do the job. In spite of everything, the IRB member allowed the hearing to continue. Ultimately, appeals were filed. As Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, you filed a brief with the Federal Court, defending IRB panels' use of interpreters who were not qualified to work into French.

I asked you the question before and you took up the same arguments that you presented in point 76 and in subsequent points in your brief, namely that there was no hard evidence that the translation provided by the IRB's interpreter contained errors and until evidence to the contrary was presented, the interpreter was deemed to be qualified.

I'm sorry if my introductory remarks are a little long, but I will give the minister ample time to respond.

I would like to read to you several excerpts from this hearing. I understand that your French is very good and so you will be able to appreciate the quality of the French. I do not want to be critical of the interpreter, who was merely doing his job. He even pointed out at the start of the hearing that he wasn't qualified, that he wasn't fully bilingual and that he didn't speak French fluently. This is just to give you an example of what your panels tolerate.

The interpreter said this in French: “Avant de audience, mon avocat était fait quelque paix.”

Later on, he went on to say this: “Je me souviens pas rien de mais quand je vois la date, c'est sûr que c'est le bon date. La signature, c'est mon signature, mais je me souviens pas quand et où j'étais allé pour cette document-là.”

So far, it's not that bad.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry, we're having problems with the interpretation.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I honestly didn't mean that as a joke; you have to trust me.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

This is a perfect illustration of the type of interpretation problem that arose at the IRB, since the wonderful and talented House of Commons interpreters are obviously not able to translate that into English.

Elsewhere, the interpreter said: “Quand je fais la demande d'asile, j'ai utilisé la adresse permanente, mais dans autre adresse, ma famille habitait dans cette adresse-là. Mes parents habitaient dans cette adresse-là.”

To understand the real meaning, you'll have to listen to him in French—if you can manage to understand.

Later on, the interpreter said: “Ils sont moi aidés pas.”

The IRB member interjected: “Pardon?”

The interpreted repeated: “Ils sont moi aidés pas”, meaning “they did not help me.”

So then, the lawyer said in French: “Ils ne m'ont pas aidé.”

The interpreter incorrectly said: “Ils sont...Ils sont moi...Ils sont aidés pas, parce qu'ils ne savaient pas où pour aller pour chercher la document.”

A while later, the interpreter said: “Je suis blank.”

The IRB member said: “Je suis...”

The interpreter repeated: “Je suis blank.”

That prompted the IRB member to ask: ““What does that mean: “Je suis blank?” Does it mean: “Je ne me rappelle pas?”

The interpreter replied in French: “Maintenant, je ne me rappelle pas ni, mais si ça vient dans mémoire revient, je vous diserai.”

I could go on, but our time is limited, so I will stop there. Clearly, even though the interpreter assigned to this hearing had the very best of intentions, the IRB member made a serious mistake once again. He allowed someone who is not fluent in French to work as an interpreter on a case which could mean either life or death for a person, to interpret statements made in a foreign language.

That the IRB member made a mistake is one thing that we can accept However, you went to court as the minister and you paid lawyers to say that unless evidence to the contrary was presented, the interpreter was deemed to be qualified.

Should such an important determination as to whether a person is or is not a refugee be made on the basis of such a poor interpretation?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Obviously, Mr. Chair, we expect the IRB and all quasi-judicial bodies to provide services in both official languages and to provide accurate and efficient interpretation services.

I cannot comment on this case, as I'm unaware of the particulars. Moreover, the IRB operates independently.

That being said, I have one of my regular meetings scheduled this afternoon with the chairperson of the IRB. I will bring your concerns to Mr. Goodman's attention. Obviously, if there are problems with the IRB's interpretation services, the matter needs to be addressed by IRB officials.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Indeed. So much the better if you raise the issue with Mr. Goodman. The fact remains that your lawyers are involved. In the brief filed with the Federal Court, the defendant is listed as the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. That's you, not the IRB.

The IRB made a mistake. As minister, you could have acknowledged that there were mistakes made in the interpretation, that it was unacceptable and that proper interpretation services should have been provided.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have 30 seconds.