EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration NUMBER 044 2nd SESSION 39th PARLIAMENT Tuesday, May 13, 2008 Le mardi 13 mai 2008 Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 13, 2008 Committee Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 044 (Official Version) Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 044 (Official Version) Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 044 (Version officielle) 44 13 05 2008 2008/05/13 15:30:00 House of Commons Comité permanent de la citoyenneté et de l'immigration Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration CIMM Chair Mr. Norman Doyle 39 2

(1530) [ English ] The Chair (Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, CPC)) : Good afternoon. Welcome to all. On behalf of our committee, I want to welcome Minister Finley, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, to our committee meeting, and her deputy, Mr. Richard Fadden. Welcome to both of you. Just for the record, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are considering the subject matter of

part 6 of Bill C-50 . Hon. Jim Karygiannis (Scarborough—Agincourt, Lib.) : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, do we have copies of the minister's speech in both languages? A voice: I put it in front of you, sir. Hon. Jim Karygiannis: Thank you, sir. The Chair : The minister has approximately one hour. In talking to the committee members beforehand, it's my intention to try to get everyone on for at least five minutes. We came to an agreement about a week or so ago that when the minister would come to our committee meeting we would go with five-minute questions instead of seven.

Given that, we should be able to get everyone on for a five-minute round. The minister has an opening statement of approximately 10 minutes or so. Minister, I'll hand it over to you, and again, welcome. Hon. Diane Finley (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, honourable members. [ Translation ] Mr.

Chairman, honourable members, I appreciate the opportunity to address Bill C-50 on budget implementation, which contains our government's proposed amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. [ English ] As I said to our colleagues at the finance committee, I'm proud to serve as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in a government that recognizes that immigration is as important to Canada's future as it has been to our past. Our country was built on immigration, and our future prosperity and success as a country largely depends on it.

To put things in context, by 2012, all of Canada's net labour force growth will have to come from immigration, but at this time there are over 900,000 people in the queue waiting to immigrate to Canada. Many of them have to wait up to six years before their application gets looked at, let alone processed. The stark reality is that if we do nothing to address the backlog by 2012, applicants will face a 10-year wait time to have their applications processed.

The lineup of people waiting to get into Canada could reach upwards of 1.5 million people. [ Translation ] Contrary to the previous government, we do not believe the status quo is acceptable or sustainable. [ English ] If we do nothing to address this problem, we risk having families wait even longer to be reunited with their loved ones, and we risk losing the people our country needs to other countries, which are in fierce competition with us for the skills and talents that immigrants bring. The current immigration system is broken and desperately needs repair.

The status quo on immigration is simply unacceptable. The current system is unfair to our country and it's unfair to those waiting to come here. Because immigration is so important to Canada's future, we need a modern and renewed vision for immigration, a vision that involves a new and responsive immigration system, one that would allow us to continue welcoming more immigrants while helping them get the jobs they need to succeed to build a better life for themselves and for their families. However, to realize this vision, changes must be made. [ Translation ] In our immigration system today, anyone can apply.

That is a good thing, and we will not change that. It reflects the fundamental commitment to fairness that all Canadians share. However, the current system leaves us little flexibility in terms of what we do with those applications. [ English ] By law, we have to process every single completed immigration application to a decision, even if a person has moved on to another country or is simply no longer interested in coming here. Our obligation to process every single application to a decision remains, regardless of how many people apply or how many were able to accept.

Furthermore, we are generally limited to processing applications in the order that we receive them. So quite simply, the current system, if left unchanged, is on track to collapse under its own weight. In the current context, Mr. Chair, we must realize that other countries are not sitting idly by.

The fact is that we face serious international competition in attracting the people with the talents and the skills we need to ensure our country's continued growth and prosperity. [ Translation ] Put simply, inaction on the backlog will result in the people we need going elsewhere as wait times to come to Canada continue to increase. [ English ] In Australia and New Zealand, where they have the kind of flexibility we seek, applicants get final decisions in as little as six months, not six years.

It's important to note that when compared with the United Kingdom, Australia, or New Zealand, Canada is the only country that does not use some kind of occupational filter to screen, code, or prioritize skilled worker applications. (1535) [ Translation ] So compared to other countries, Canada's system is just not flexible enough. [ English ] Urgent action is required so that we can welcome more immigrants and their families faster while ensuring that the workers we need get here sooner. To accomplish this objective, Mr. Chair, our government has proposed a three-pronged approach.

Number one, we have committed to investing more resources—$109 million over five years. But more money isn't enough. We also have to do things smarter, better, and faster. So we'll make administrative changes as well, such as centralizing our data entry to free up resources in our overseas missions for more processing. We'll also code applications in the backlog by occupation so that we can refer applications of interest to the provinces and the territories for processing under the provincial nominee programs.

As part of our administrative changes, we'll also send in dedicated teams to our overseas missions to speed up processing in parts of the world where wait times are the longest, and we'll transfer resources from busy to less busy missions. For example, in October, when we lifted visa restrictions on the Czech Republic and Latvia, we transferred resources to the Philippines to help with the backlogs there. [ Translation ] But increasing funding and improving administrative efficiencies is not enough. Systemic change is needed in order to fix the system.

That is why we have introduced legislative changes to give us the flexibility and authority to both manage the backlog and set priorities that would match Canada's needs. [ English ] Our proposed legislation will allow the minister to identify categories of occupations—not individuals—for processing on a priority basis; that is, the proposed legislation will allow for the processing of applications based on our country's needs, not on one's individual place in the line. To make sure that we get it right, there are several checks and balances on the minister.

First of all, the ministerial instructions will have to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Our immigration system will continue to be universal and non-discriminatory. The instructions will also complement the objectives of IRPA, that is, to support Canada's economy and competitiveness, reunite families, and protect refugees. These instructions will also require broad input. Prior to issuing the instructions, the government will consult with the provinces and territories and industry and government departments to shape the approach.

In consulting with the provinces, we will seek assurance that when they say they need immigrants with certain skills, those immigrants can actually get their credentials recognized so they can work. Finally, ministerial instructions will be subject to cabinet approval, ensuring government-wide accountability for the decisions taken. And to be completely transparent, the instructions will be published in the Canada Gazette , on the departmental website, and will be reported in CIC's annual report, which is tabled in Parliament. Mr. Chair, let me be crystal clear on two key points about these proposals.

First, contrary to the misinformation that is out there, we will not be placing any limits on the number of applications we accept; Canada remains open to immigrants and anyone can still apply. However, under the proposed legislative changes, we will not have to process every application. Those applications that are not processed in a given year could be held for future consideration or be returned to the applicant with a refund of their application fee—and they would be welcome to reapply. The result will be that the backlog will stop growing and will actually start to come down.

The flexibility in managing the backlog will accomplish three things: it will help reduce the backlog; it will ensure that immigrants have the jobs they need to succeed; and it will allow our country to continue to grow and prosper. [ Translation ] That is what these proposed amendments would do, Mr. Chairman. However, I should also clarify what the proposed changes would not do.

There are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the Minister. (1540) [ English ] For example, there's a myth out there that the minister would be arbitrarily able to cherry-pick applicants in the queue and override immigration officers' decisions on individual cases. This is simply not the case, as the minister is limited to designating priority categories, not applicants; nor will the minister have the authority to select an application for processing or reject an application that has been processed and accepted.

With respect to concerns expressed about the impact of the legislation on family reunification and humanitarian and compassionate cases, any instruction from the minister will have to respect the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which include supporting Canada's economy and competitiveness, supporting family reunification, and upholding our humanitarian requirements. To be clear, the ministerial instructions will not apply to refugees, protected persons, or humanitarian and compassionate applications made from within Canada.

We would also continue to establish clear target ranges for numbers of immigrants that we intend to accept in each category. In the case of family class applications, this means Canada plans to accept approximately 70,000 applicants in 2008. [ Translation ] The instructions must also respect our commitments to provinces and territories regarding the Provincial Nominee Program and the Canada-Quebec Accord. I know that time is running out, Mr.

Chairman and I am looking forward to your questions. [ English ] In conclusion, let me just say that our proposed changes to the immigration system are ultimately about people. It's about a vision for our country to make sure that people who have gone through so much to get here succeed at building a better life for themselves and for their family. It's about helping newcomers get the jobs they need to succeed, because their success is our success. And it's about ensuring the future growth and prosperity of immigrants and their families while building a better Canada.

These proposals would achieve that vision and would help immigrants continue to contribute to the future of Canada. I'd like to thank this committee for the fine work you did on Bill C-37 , in reviewing that, concerning the “lost Canadians”, and also on the unanimous report you submitted on which that bill was based. I was very pleased and proud of you and your efforts when that bill received royal assent recently. [ Translation ] Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. I am now prepared to take questions. [ English ] Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Madam Minister.

We'll have five-minute questions, and of course if we have a minimum number of points of order, we can get everyone on for a five-minute round. Mr. Karygiannis, you're first. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Minister, welcome to the committee. So there's no misunderstanding as to what you and your deputy minister are saying today, I've e-mailed both of you a list of questions I was going to ask and some information. I'm sure, Mr. Fadden, yours came through. Unfortunately, the minister's e-mail was full and it kept bouncing. This is in regard to advertising.

I want to read and put on the record a letter sent to me by your colleague, Mr. Michael Fortier, regarding advertising. He says the following: My department is responsible for issuing government advertising contracts, managing the government's Agency of Record and that buys advertising space or time in the media, and reporting on the advertising activities of federal departments. In this regard, I can report that although government advertising media has declined by 72 % over the last four years, advertising in ethnic print media has declined by only 13 % over the same period.

Reductions in government media expenditures have had an impact on all media, but less in ethnic media in terms of its share of overall government spending. Minister, what is your department's budget for advertising on Bill C-50 ? Hon. Diane Finley : So far, we've spent just a little over $1.1 million. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : How much of that was spent in ethnic media and how much of that was spent in mainstream media? Hon. Diane Finley : I believe it was all spent in ethnic media—is that correct? My understanding is that's where it was spent. Virtually all of it was spent in— Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : These are the ads you're buying, Minister, in the ethnic presses. Hon. Diane Finley : Yes. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Are these the ads? Hon. Diane Finley : We have ethnic media— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Minister, are these the ads you're buying, right here? Hon. Diane Finley : I'm sorry, I can't see those from this distance. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : They're South Asia newspapers, Sri Lankan newspapers, street newspapers, Filipino newspapers. I think the department has gone on an aggressive buying spree. Hon.

Diane Finley : I think it's important to recognize that many of the immigrants in this country rely on ethnic media as their main source of news. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Who is the agency on the record? Hon. Diane Finley : One thing I can tell you is that--

(1545) Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Can I please have the agency on record? Hon. Diane Finley : We're looking for that information. One thing I can tell you is that we made sure this information was available in over 20 languages because the reforms affect immigrants more than Canadian-born Canadians. We wanted to make sure they understood what is happening, what we are proposing, because they have the right to know. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : So absolutely no money was spent in mainstream media. Is that correct? Hon. Diane Finley : No, I did not say that. I said the bulk of it was spent in the ethnic media. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Could I have the agency on the record, please? Hon. Diane Finley : We're still looking for that information. Okay, here it is: ethnic media, $1,076,000; mainstream media, $28,000. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Who is the agency on the record, please? Hon. Diane Finley : We do not have that, I'm sorry. I'd be pleased to get it for you. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Did that go through your colleague, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, or was that spent directly from the department? Hon. Diane Finley : No, that went through the minister, of course. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Did your agency on record encourage ethnic media to overcharge? Hon. Diane Finley : Absolutely not. What a suggestion! Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Minister, I have an e-mail from a newspaper. My questions to him were: Further to our telephone conversation for the Immigration advertisement newspaper backlog. Media Marketing asked that you charge the government the highest rate you have which is $1500 per page. You have media cards which range from $500 to $1000 per page. Media Marketing under Mr. Yamin encouraged you and he ok'd the higher card. Please let me know if this is correct or not? Thanks Jim

Hi Jim. Thanks for your email and I would say “yes” for your questions. But some one is going to pay me more money I would be happy. Minister, why is your agency on record charging higher than they should? I will give this to the clerk. Hon. Diane Finley : All of these transactions are handled by Public Works, and I would suggest you direct your questions to them. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Minister, it's your department that asked Public Works to advertise. Hon. Diane Finley : Yes, and they-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Why is the agency on the record charging higher than normal?

Why is the agency on the record suggesting to people to charge higher than normal? Hon. Diane Finley : I don't know that they are, but their responsibility is to do the placement, to deal with it. Our department does not deal with those. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : What would you do about this, Minister? There's evidence here. There's all kinds of advertising. I'm sure other newspapers were probably encouraged to do the same thing. What is your department and what are you personally going to do about this? The Chair : A point of order. Mr.

Ed Komarnicki (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC) : I have a point of order, and I think he ought to respect that. The Chair : I have a point of order, Mr. Karygiannis. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Stop the clock, please, Mr. Chair. The Chair : No, there will be no stoppage of clocks today. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : First of all, this member is suggesting that there's evidence of an issue being proved when another agency-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : I've placed it before the committee, but you know, Mr. Komarnicki-- The Chair : Order, please. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : --my question is to the minister.

My question is, why, and what are you going to do about it, Minister? The Chair : Order, Mr. Karygiannis. I have a point of order. I have to hear it, so will you please restrain yourself when I say “Order, please”? What's your point of order? Mr. Ed Komarnicki : The point of order was that this member is indicating that he has evidence that establishes a certain point when that hasn't been established in this place, and apparently it's to another department and those questions should be put there and not here. The Chair : To that point of order. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Chair, with all due respect, I've asked the minister. I made her aware. I tabled it in the House. The ads are here, and I can certainly give them to the minister. My question is to the minister: what is she going to do about it? Is she going to talk to her colleague, and, if so, will she follow up? Will she make a commitment to this committee to follow up and leave no stone unturned in order for us to get to the bottom of this? The Chair : I think she has already indicated that this information will come from Public Works, and she will make every effort to follow up on that. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, what I'm hearing is that the minister wants to slide away on this. She absolutely doesn't want to make a commitment to follow this up. The Chair : In the meantime, Mr. St. Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr (Jeanne-Le Ber, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a number of questions for the minister. Several comments caught me off guard, but I will come straight to the point. As a Bloc MP, you surely understand that I am very concerned about the potential impact of this legislation on Quebec and on the Canada-Quebec Accord.

I believe someone stated to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights that the act would not affect people selected by Quebec. Yet, during our hearings, some witnesses told us that on the contrary, while this may not be the legislator's intent, there is nothing in the act to prevent instructions from applying to persons selected by the provinces. Mention was made at one briefing by your officials that instructions like these could be issued if one province attracted all of the applications for qualified workers in a given field.

Would you, or a future minister, have the authority under the act to issue instructions that could impact how the applications of persons selected by the Government of Quebec are processed?

(1550) Hon. Diane Finley : As I just said, the proposed amendments will not affect the Canada-Quebec Accord. I've discussed the changes with the department and with my officials and we all agree that they would have no impact. The Accord clearly sets out the responsibilities of the federal and provincial governments with respect to immigrations and the reforms proposed in Bill C-50 will not affect these responsibilities in any way. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I've looked at the bill and

Part 6 contains two pages. Is there one specific clause in the bill stipulating that instructions for the processing of applications would not apply to Quebec applications? Hon. Diane Finley : No, there is not, but there are no such provisions in the existing legislation either. Everything is covered in the Accord. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : In short, you're saying that neither the existing legislation nor the bill affords any protection in this regard. Hon. Diane Finley : The bill does not change anything. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I have often heard the same comment in Quebec.

Once the selection certificate has been issued in Quebec, it is referred to the federal government so that health and safety concerns can be addressed. People complain that it already takes the federal government too long to respond. If the minister prioritizes a certain number of applications, would this not delay the processing of applications in Quebec or in another province that are not a priority? Overall, the resources have not changed. Nor has the number of cases handled. If some applications are deemed to be priorities, then others further down the list will take longer to process. Hon.

Diane Finley : We are prepared to make a promise to Quebec in so far as prioritizing its applications is concerned. Regardless of what happens, we will continue to keep our promises and to process each application fairly. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : That doesn't quite answer my question, but I would like to talk about reducing wait times. You mentioned wait times more than once in your presentation, and I don't quite see how issuing instructions will reduce wait times. If there are six persons in the queue and the last one in line is moved to the front of the line, there are still six people in line.

How will this measure designed to prioritize applicants reduce the average wait time? Hon. Diane Finley : We are going to do three things... [ English ] The Chair : Let us have a brief response, Minister. We're trying to stay on time here. [ Translation ] Hon. Diane Finley : We will have $109 million to assign more human resources to deal with this situation and we plan to make some administrative changes to speed up the process. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Minister. We'll go to Madam Chow. Ms.

Olivia Chow (Trinity—Spadina, NDP) : Minister, I noticed that actual spending in 2006 on the immigration program is $244.8 million, and in the main estimates in 2008, the immigration program spending is $164.86 million. That's a 32% drop. Yet for the advertising program, $2.4 million has been put into the supplementary estimates. That's a lot of money for the advertising program. I think $1.1 million has already been spent on defending a bill that the House of Commons hasn't even passed...but that's neither here nor there. I have listened carefully to all your interviews.

You have said you do not want to process dead people, which we totally agree with. One way to not process dead people is to send a letter to all 925,000 people in the backlog and say, “If you don't respond in 60 days, obviously you don't want us to process your application any more.” Maybe a few of them are already dead; I don't know. But that's an easy way to deal with it. Why not do it that way? Secondly, you have often said you want to get the doctors in, because we need doctors. I've heard that many times. I then looked up the temporary foreign workers program. This information comes from the employers.

It specifies the kind of skilled labour they want. I have looked at the kinds of skills employers say they need most in Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. In Alberta, it's code number 6242. It's not doctors; it's actually cooks. In 2007, the employers from Alberta have requested 3,343 cooks. Nowhere on this list is doctors. I then looked at British Columbia and Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Some are asking for maybe 200 doctors, but certainly chefs and cooks are at the top of the list. So are we doing all of this in Bill C-50 ,

part 6, in order to bring more cooks into Canada, or maybe kitchen helpers? I see that Alberta has requested 6,976 food-counter attendants and kitchen helpers. Next on the list are babysitters, nannies, and parent helpers—5,000 of them. There is a request for 4,000 light-duty cleaners. Are these the people you're going to put at the front of the list—they're obviously in demand—instead of some other folks? I'm just looking at the documentation in front of me. They are obviously the people we need. Am I correct in that

interpretation?

(1555) Hon. Diane Finley : Not entirely. One thing I've been saying—and you say you've been listening—is that we are going to set the categories for priorities only after consultation with all of the provinces and territories and with other government departments and industry. The priorities might include medical professionals, doctors, lab technicians, nurses. There is a wide range. We're even short of veterinarians in some parts of the country. We recognize that there are different needs in different parts of the country.

That's one of the reasons we have the provincial nominee program—if the needs are specific to one region, the provinces have the flexibility to deal with them. We're looking for priorities. As you point out, doctors may be small in number, but some are still desperately needed in Canada. In having small numbers, we're not going to be worried about displacing others who are in the lineup, as was suggested earlier. We will still meet the needs of the country. Ms. Olivia Chow : Nevertheless, British Columbia has requested 1,701 cooks.

They need 7,900 babysitters, nannies, and parents' helpers; 3,000 farm workers and harvesting labourers. There is a high demand in the construction trades. I don't see doctors on this list.... The Chair : Okay, I would ask-- Ms. Olivia Chow : Did I run out of time? The Chair : If you have a brief response, Minister, that's fine; if not, I'll go to Mr. Khan. Hon. Diane Finley : The requirements vary significantly across the country.

We want to recognize all those differences and, through our various immigration streams, help those regions get the people they need, but just as importantly, we want to help immigrants who are applying to come here to find the jobs that match their skills so that they can succeed sooner.

(1600) The Chair : Thank you. Go ahead, Mr. Khan. Mr. Wajid Khan (Mississauga—Streetsville, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will ask three questions, Minister, and I will give you all the time to hear your answers, but before I go there, I would like to quote from the previous Liberal minister of immigration, the Honourable Joe Volpe, who said this: Gone are the days when Canada could rely on wave after wave of immigrants from familiar European sources --and later-- Countries design immigration programs to benefit their national interests.

Even considering refugee systems, the needs of the individual immigrant is secondary to the country's economic interest. Effective strategies for recruitment, integration and retention, then, can only be measured against the return on investment. That's self-explanatory, at least to me. It tells me that they've always recognized that the system does not work. It is broken, and things need to be changed. Minister, why are we in this backlog mess in the first place? What are the specific areas of IRPA that cause these problems and backlogs, and how do they affect Canada's immediate and long-term economic future?

Hon. Diane Finley : Those are very good questions. The backlog used to be only about 50,000 people, which was turned over about three or four times a year, which was pretty reasonable. Since then, when we took over, it had ballooned to over 800,000. Part of the reason was that in 2002, when IRPA was brought in, there had been a lot of discussion and speculation prior to the bill's passing, which prompted a lot of people to suddenly flood the government with applications to come to Canada because they were afraid of changes to the act.

That flood of applications came in, but IRPA had nothing in it that would allow the government to cope with this flood. It required that every application be processed, and that's simply not pragmatic. You can't just keep pouring them in. We have no control over how many applications we get, and we certainly get more each year than we can possibly process. Frankly, even adding more resources, which we're doing--we could do that until the cows come home and it wouldn't be enough. It's a fundamentally flawed system that requires us to process applications--duplicate applications, in many cases.

We can only process them in the order we receive them, for the most part. It would be like building a hockey team under a requirement to take the first 25 people who applied, even if none of them was a goalie. That's the way the system is set up now. It doesn't help us meet our economic needs as a country. It doesn't give us the flexibility to respond to changing times. It was actually designed in a time when there were too many people for too few jobs; now we're just the opposite. We don't have the flexibility to help the immigrants succeed by finding them jobs in their fields. It systemically needs changing.

Mr. Wajid Khan : Minister, you've had some criticism that you have arbitrary powers. Am I correct in assuming that's not the case, and that before you issue instructions, you would have to discuss this matter with all sorts of different agencies, provinces, organized labour, employers, and others? Even after your instructions are issued, wouldn't they have to go for cabinet approval? Hon. Diane Finley : You're absolutely right. In designing this new mechanism, we've ensured that there are checks and balances on the minister. First of all, all the instructions must comply with the charter. That's the law.

We intend to honour the law. Second, consultations will be required with the provinces, with the territories, with industry, and with other government departments that have labour information, for example. Finally, before they come into force, all the instructions will have to receive cabinet approval.

As well, for transparency, we'll be publishing them in the Canada Gazette and reporting back to Parliament in our annual report to Parliament, because we want to make sure the minister cannot act on a whim and that a number of perspectives are brought to bear on these instructions, because they are so very important and because we believe so much in accountability. Mr. Wajid Khan : How much time do I have, Mr. Chair? The Chair : You have 30 seconds. Mr. Wajid Khan : Very quickly, Minister, will Bill C-50 have any impact on family reunification and refugee applicants? Hon. Diane Finley : Absolutely not.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, this bill does not touch at all upon refugees, humanitarian and compassionate applications from within the country on the PNP program, or even on the Canada–Quebec accord.

(1605) The Chair : Thank you. Mr. Bevilacqua. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Vaughan, Lib.) : Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Minister, I want to thank you for your presentation here in our committee. I want to say in a nutshell that I have a very big problem with this bill. I'll give you an example. You say in your speech that there are some who are suggesting that this legislation will put too much power in the hands of the minister. The vast majority of the people who appeared in front of this committee believe that's indeed the case. There are not some people; there are many, many people.

The problem you have had right from the beginning is that in your communication you stated that this bill was in fact going to be implemented to deal with the backlog. The reality is--and it's a reality that has been confirmed by many people who have appeared in front of this committee--that your changes will not deal with the backlog. That's number one. Number two, the manner and form in which you acted as a minister was not becoming of an individual who respects the parliamentary tradition here, or the process, with all due respect. There was no consultation.

We had to literally beg that the committee actually study the contents of Bill C-50 , as it deals with immigration. That should have been something you should have offered as a minister. As well, there was a major concern about transparency, accountability, and the lack of resources that exist, and there is nobody who has said these reforms will in fact fix the immigration system. And you have not helped the debate. You have not helped the debate for many, many reasons, and one of them is that you've not been telling the truth all the time. I'll give you an example.

When it came to the issue related to the number— Mr. Wajid Khan : I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : There will be facts. Mr. Wajid Khan : Telling the minister she lied, that she did not tell the truth, is an insinuation that I object to. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : Mr. Khan, just follow me for a second. The Chair : It is considered unparliamentary language, not a point of order. Mr. Bevilacqua, continue. It's unparliamentary language. Hon.

Maurizio Bevilacqua : Would you agree with your own officials, who appeared in front of the finance committee, who said that neither temporary foreign workers nor foreign students are new Canadians on the day they arrive in Canada? Hon. Diane Finley : They're not new Canadians; they're newcomers. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : You said during question period, on March 14— Hon. Diane Finley : And I corrected that, on the record. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : ... this Conservative government welcomed more immigrants to Canada than has been done in almost 100 years.

Or when, on April 4, 2008, you said: That is why we were able to welcome 430,000 new Canadians last year to this country, the highest in over 100 years. Hon. Diane Finley : And I corrected that on the record immediately afterwards. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : That's misinformation. Hon. Diane Finley : No, I corrected it. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : Another issue, with all due respect, Madam Minister, is in reference to this impression that you're trying to leave Canadians with, that you're doing it because you want to deal with the economic challenges of the country.

If you were really serious about it, then why did you accept 36,000 fewer landed immigrants into Canada? And why didn't you use those 36,000 as skilled workers? The concern I have is that this misinformation campaign is really hurting the credibility of the process. We would be willing to support your initiatives if you had given us the respect that a parliament deserves, and you have not. That is a sad statement. I'd rather you had put all the information out.

We could have debated this issue--a serious debate--and you would have consulted prior and after you presented these changes so that due process would have been followed. This is where the failure is on this bill, because no opportunity was given to Parliament to take a serious look at it. Nothing shows that more than having a bill that is over 100 pages, with two pages dedicated to immigration. The Chair : A response from the minister.... Hon. Diane Finley : I was asked a moment ago how the backlog was created.

Partly it was created because there were a lot of public consultations and lead-up to the passage of IRPA. We wanted to prevent that, because that would not help the system. In terms of dealing with the backlog, the first thing we have to do is limit the intake before we can reduce it. We've made that perfectly clear. That's why legislative changes are needed.

We are also doing this as part of a comprehensive immigration vision, where we are deliberately expanding the temporary foreign worker class, because we need to get people here to fill jobs and it takes way too long for them to come in through the regular stream right now.

(1610) The Chair : Thank you, Minister. Mr. Carrier. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier (Alfred-Pellan, BQ) : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Minister. You began your presentation by stating how proud you were to be the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. To my mind, to have such an important piece of legislation on immigration, a subject of interest to the whole country, consigned to barely two pages of a 130-page bill does not do you justice as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I think a different approach should have been taken, and a real bill calling for immigration reform tabled.

All of the groups that we have spoken to and that are concerned by the immigration issue have confirmed that they were not consulted on

Part 6 of Bill C-50. To put forward this initiative as the solution to the problem is more or less an abuse of authority. As committee members, we are forced to quickly review the portion of the bill concerning immigration. In essence, we are consulting and discussing after the fact a bill that pleases no one. How can you claim to be proud, given that this bill is subject to a vote of confidence, because it is a budget bill? It's as if you want to tie our hands so that we have to go along with your solution. Hon. Diane Finley : This bill has been the focus of many debates, including the one taking place today.

I even invited all opposition critics to a briefing on this bill, and no one bothered to attend to learn the facts. It is important to realize that Canada's success depends largely on our having sufficient human resources. After 2012, our net labour force growth will come from immigration. It is critical that steps be taken now to address this situation. We cannot afford to spend two years debating this matter. We need to act now, for the sake of our economy and our country's future. Mr.

Robert Carrier : Madam Minister, you have been in office for at least two years now, which should have given you ample time, in my view, to introduce a regular bill that we could have examined calmly, instead of rushing around trying to get people's views on this part of the bill. You say that you are committed to investing $109 million, which would allow you to make, among other things, administrative changes, such as centralizing the data entry system. However, you failed to mention the 50 IRB positions that remain vacant.

Staffing these positions should be your priority if you want applications to be processed more quickly. Hon. Diane Finley : Which 50 positions are you referring to? Mr. Robert Carrier : Of the 156 IRB member positions, I believe 50 are vacant. Hon. Diane Finley : IRB member positions? Mr. Robert Carrier : That's right. Hon. Diane Finley : You're talking about a completely different system. Mr. Robert Carrier : These are not the same... Hon. Diane Finley : That is a totally different system. Mr. Robert Carrier : These are not the people who process the applications. Hon. Diane Finley : No, they are not. Mr.

Robert Carrier : Moving along then, you stated that the instructions to be issued will take into account a range of viewpoints. Whose viewpoints exactly? Several groups have told us that priority consideration will be given to the views of employers and that a considerable amount of lobbying will be done to influence the instructions that you will be issuing. Do you plan to take into consideration the views of groups that represent cultural communities? Hon. Diane Finley : Sir, we have the support of almost 50 ethnic community groups, of business associations, of most provinces and of nine newspapers.

The list of supporters is fairly extensive, as they appreciate what we are trying to accomplish.

(1615) Mr. Robert Carrier : These groups are not... [ English ] The Chair : I have to interrupt here. Sorry. Mr. Komarnicki. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Minister, for your remarks. I'm happy to hear many of them explaining the way of the bill. There's certainly been misinformation with respect to the bill, not coming from your office but from other quarters. I know we have settled, through hearings, that refugees and protected persons are not affected by this bill, that humanitarian and compassionate grounds— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : A point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair : A point of order. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Certainly Mr. Komarnicki is summarizing something I have not heard, and I'm sure that if we look over the blues, this will be the case. The Chair : The honourable member knows that is not a point of order. Mr. Komarnicki. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Applications in Canada on humanitarian and compassionate grounds continue to be made. In fact, all of the bill has to be charter compliant, so there can't be any discrimination on race or nationality or any physical disability or any other of the charter protections.

And not only must the bill be subject to the charter, but the instruction, when it eventually issues, needs to be charter compliant, and the process under the instruction needs to be charter compliant. That's comforting. I'd like to read something that was in the press. It was by the president of the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada. He recently said, and I quote, “It is important for the Government of Canada to communicate with Canadians of all backgrounds. The current legislation regarding immigration reforms”— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : A point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : A point of order.

Hon. Jim Karygiannis : The parliamentary secretary is reading something. Could he table it? Will he put his BlackBerry down as evidence? If not, I'd like to see that letter. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : —“will have a direct”— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : A point of order, Mr. Chair. He's reading something. I'd like to have it tabled. The Chair : I'm sure the member will table it at his earliest convenience. There is no point of order. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : We're not in the habit of tabling anything we're reading from in the committee. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, a point of order. Mr.

Ed Komarnicki : I'm going to finish reading part of the press release— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Just a second. Mr. Chair, he's reading something. Either he's able to table it or he's not. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I will table it for the benefit of the member. I will read it, if he would just stop interrupting so I can do that in my time. The president of the National Ethnic Press and Media Council of Canada, Thomas S. Saras said: ...the government should be applauded for their efforts to communicate the intent of this legislation through public notices in the ethnic press and media. ...

The NEPMCC strongly believes that advertising in non-official language mediums is essential in a multicultural society as part of our democratic institutions and at the same time cost effective. ... The majority of new Canadians and members of the ethnic communities rely on the ethnic press as their primary source of news and information. Advertising important legislative amendments that will have direct impact on our communities is the right thing to do. There has been a lot of misinformation, and this was a good opportunity to put some real information.

Another misconception has been whether or not there will be any consultation with respect to the instructions. What many people don't know is that this bill does not contain the instructions; the instructions will come at a later date. Do you intend, indeed, to have consultations, and what might they be? Hon. Diane Finley : They will be definitely at a later date. That's part of the way we set this up, to make sure there are no arbitrary decisions and no one is subject to whimsy of the minister.

We want to make sure what we do is objective and transparent and does involve consultations, because this is an ongoing process. One of the great benefits of this legislation is that it will allow any future government flexibility and authority to manage the application process, to manage the incoming applications in a way that meets the needs of the immigrants and of the country.

Even as circumstances around the world or indeed within Canada change, all future governments will have the flexibility to deal with the immigration system efficiently and effectively, unlike the current broken system we've been saddled with today. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Thank you, Minister. Certainly past ministers, including the Liberal minister for York West, have said we're not doing the system justice by taking applications that aren't going to get processed for years and years and years. It doesn't make any sense for us to be continually taking these names. The reality is that we need to change the system.

We need an immigration system that is, in this regard, more flexible in response to employers, provinces, and our cities. Now, after 13 years and a backlog that grew from 50,000 to 950,000, saying we need to do something but not doing anything is not the answer, Minister.

(1620) The Chair : Twenty seconds. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : What are we doing in this bill to ensure it meets the upcoming needs of the country? Hon. Diane Finley : We're doing two things. The first is only agreeing to process as many applications as we can in a given year. I don't believe it's fair to give would-be immigrants false hopes that they might get in here sometime in the next six to ten years. I don't think that's fair to them at all. This way, what we're doing is being upfront with them and being realistic with them so that they can get on with their lives. The Chair : Thank you, Minister. Mr. Telegdi.

Hon. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, welcome. I want to deal with some misconceptions. I've been listening to you and the parliamentary secretary long enough. There are sound bites, talking points, that are coming through. Yes, it has to be charter-compliant. Minister, as I told the parliamentary secretary, a security certificate was not compliant with the charter for 25 years and it was in place. So saying it's charter-compliant might be a wish, something that gets dealt with down the road. There's another issue I'm bothered about.

Right now we have an open, transparent system, the point system, the objectivity of which was established in 1967. It has been copied by Australia, New Zealand, and Europe. The United States Senate started a major study on it a year ago. The problem, from my perspective, hasn't been the openness or transparency of the system—those are good things. The problem has been the way we allocate points. It wasn't the politicians or the committee who made up the point system back in 2002; it was the bureaucrats. When you compare our point system to Australia's and New Zealand's, it doesn't make any sense.

We give 10 points for the maximum age, for someone who's 49 years old,

whereas both New Zealand and Australia cut them off at a younger age. If we're going to get people over here, we need to get them over here early. I think we could have had a fix on it if we had just done that. I said it was the bureaucrats who drove the point system in 2002. In Dragan v. Canada, the court issued an order of mandamus. The court makes it clear that a big problem has been that the bureaucrats misinformed this committee and the Governor in Council. But guess what? They got off scot-free—none of them ever had to deal with it. I have in my hand a memorandum to the minister.

It's been floating around for a long time. It makes it clear that the problem has always been that the bureaucracy has artificially been constraining resources. That's the only control they had over processing. So there's no issue. If we wanted to get people in quickly, we could. They don't have to wait six years. We can get a temporary foreign worker in for 35 days or a couple of months. They can get them in, no problem. Minister, you're the first minister in this decade who has missed her numbers, meaning the forecast.

In this last session, instead of coming in with a 240,000 to 265,000 range, you're going to be coming in with less than 237,000. Minister, under your watch, we have created a crisis on the Immigration and Refugee Board. We went from a backlog of 18,000 to something like 45,000, and we're going to be over 60,000 by year's end. I have a real concern about who's in charge over there, and I have a real concern about the underhanded way this whole process is being snuck through Parliament, being put in legislation.

You're accommodating the bureaucrats' dream—the bureaucrats who have spent so much time misinforming members of Parliament and the Governor in Council, and who are responsible for a big part of the mess we are in.

(1625) The Chair : Minister? Hon. Diane Finley : You raised a number of different subjects. I would like to say that the staff at Citizenship and Immigration do work hard. I've been to facilities outside this one. I've looked at how they are working to improve the process and trying to deliver better service, and I'm very proud of the work they do. You do raise one really interesting point, and that is about the point system. When we were looking at immigration reforms, one suggestion was that we raise the number of points to stream people out so we could manage the backlog or the intake better.

I disagreed with that for the simple reason that this would benefit those with more education, not necessarily with the education we need. As Ms. Chow pointed out, we also need welders. We need cooks, and those people would have been screened out, so I recognize that raising the points isn't good. There are certainly some challenges with the existing point system, and I would encourage this committee, based on the fine work you did on the lost Canadians issue, to go ahead and take a look at the point system to see if you can find ways we can remedy that program to make an even more effective immigration system.

I'd welcome those recommendations. The Chair : Thank you, Minister. Ms. Grewal.

Mrs. Nina Grewal (Fleetwood—Port Kells, CPC) : Madam Minister, I would like to thank you for coming, for your time, and your presentation. I would just like to clear up one thing. Some of the critics say that all the immigration system needs is more resources. Pump more money into the system and everything will be fine. How do you respond to this proposal? Hon. Diane Finley : It's really quite simple. When you have a system that is fundamentally flawed to start with, throwing more money and more people at it isn't enough to fix it. Yes, it's necessary, but it's not sufficient.

We have to find ways to fix a very badly broken system. That's what we're proposing with our legislation, but along with our legislation we're also making administrative changes and putting more resources into it, so we are taking the advice of more resources, but that's not enough. You just can't keep piling it on, because if you do that, people will say we are processing faster so they will flood us with even more applications, for which we need more people, then more applications, and it becomes an out-of-control spiral.

The country only has a finite capacity each year to welcome newcomers, whether it's in housing, schooling, any sorts of jobs for these people. We want newcomers to succeed when they get here. This is why we're saying let's welcome the newcomers and give priority to the newcomers who are going to be able to get the jobs here. Those are the jobs that need to be filled. That works for the newcomers and their families. That works for Canada, and that's what we're after. We've seen statistic after statistic showing that newcomer success rates have been declining over the last 10 to 12 years.

I don't think it's a coincidence that during that same period of time, settlement funding was frozen by the previous government. That's why we are investing $1.4 billion in new money in settlement funding, so that newcomers get the chance to succeed quickly and integrate into our culture. We're taking a lot of steps. We're introducing the Canadian experience class this summer.

We've launched the Foreign Credentials Referral Office to help would-be newcomers identify where and how to get their credentials evaluated before they even get here, and then if there is a gap between their skills and our standards, they have the opportunity to upgrade to Canadian standards before they even land, helping to ensure their success once they get here. We want to change that past trend of the downward slope of newcomer success. We want to get more newcomers here faster and we want them to succeed sooner. Mrs.

Nina Grewal : How are the changes contained in Bill C-50 , combined with recent funding announcements from your department, going to improve the immigration system and help new Canadians succeed in this country?

(1630) Hon. Diane Finley : There are a number of ways to do this. First of all, we have to clear the backlog. That's one of the reasons we're putting in a lot more resources. We're also doing things like coding the files with occupation, province of destination, so the provinces can then access these files. It's called data mining. I guess that's the technical term. They can identify people they need and get them here sooner. We're looking at doing our processing centrally here, moving files around from busy to less busy missions as well as sheer process changes that will let us do things faster.

If we get more people processing each application faster, we get a lot more applications processed a lot faster. We stop the growth in the backlog with their legislative changes. Then eventually we're going to get to the point where we have an efficient system where the wait time for newcomers applying to come here does not put them off and make them go to Australia or somewhere else where they are obviously allowed to get in a lot more quickly. We're going to be meeting the needs of the economy. We're going to help newcomers succeed.

That's going to work for everybody, and eventually we'll get people who really want to come here, people we need who want to be here to fill those jobs, and we'll be able to get them here in a timely manner. That's good. Mrs. Nina Grewal : And how does this backlog impact on Canada's immediate and long-term economic future? Hon. Diane Finley : Right now, frankly, with the wait time being as much as six years, it's putting people off from even applying to come to this country. I mean, who would want to put their lives on hold for six years waiting to find out if they might be able to come to Canada?

Nobody wants to do that. I shouldn't say nobody, but a lot of people certainly don't. So people aren't even bothering to apply. In fact, I met some people from the New Zealand government and they told me, because they process their applications in six to twelve months--usually on the six-month side--that New Zealand's best marketing tool to attract immigrants is Canada's backlog. That's a really sad commentary. We need to fix it. The Chair : Okay. It is 4:30 p.m. and we have completed our third round. I was hoping to get a couple more people in, but we don't have time. So thank you, Minister. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : A point of order. The Chair : A point of order before we adjourn. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : When I was raising my questions regarding the ads, how much, where, and all that stuff, you made a sort of comment that the minister will get back to us. I'm wondering if that is a commitment on your behalf, or will the minister come back to us with specifics, where the money was spent, which newspaper was bought, how much did it cost on advertising, all the details?

Is this an undertaking that-- The Chair : It was my understanding that you would get in touch with Public Works and would endeavour to see that they would get back to our committee with the information. Hon. Diane Finley : Yes, we will do that. They would be the ones who would have that information, Mr. Chair. The Chair : Thank you, Minister. A point of order, Mr. Bevilacqua. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : Mr. Chairman, there are some members of the committee who unfortunately were not able to ask questions of the minister. The Chair : Two. Hon.

Maurizio Bevilacqua : Two, which-- The Chair : One associate member and one member. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : I was wondering if members of the committee would be generous enough to allow those two members to ask their questions so that they could participate in this session. The Chair : I guess I would have to go to the minister to determine what her

schedule might be before I would ask the committee. Would the minister want to stay for an extra five to ten minutes? Is there a schedule? Hon. Diane Finley : I do have a scheduling issue, Mr. Chair, but I would be happy to stay for, say, five minutes. The Chair : Okay. Then we'll go to Madam Beaumier. Ms. Colleen Beaumier (Brampton West, Lib.) : Thank you, Minister. I appreciate that. The Chair : I was hoping to be able to squeeze you in. Ms. Colleen Beaumier : Thank you. Minister, you tried to swing these measures on Canadians through the back door, and you did so without consulting community groups.

There's a growing list of stakeholders who do not support these measures: the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration Consultants, the Canadian Council for Refugees, the Canada Arab Federation, the Chinese Canadian National Council, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and the Alliance of South Asian Communities' immigration lawyers, such as Lorne Waldman and David Cohen. The only people who have supported this legislation have been from patronage organizations, such as CFIC, and their support has been weak.

No stakeholders have been contacted. Knowing that this is a very weak bill, you've allowed the Prime Minister to give it minimal coverage, two out of the 150 pages. You keep going back to the backlog. Not one single witness has said there are measures to deal with the backlog. I want to know exactly how this will deal with the backlog and how you can claim you have any serious intentions for your interests in your portfolio when you are pushing through legislation without proper consultation that is clearly not supported by a majority of stakeholders.

(1635) The Chair : I have one more, so I'll go three, three, and three here. Go ahead, Minister. Hon. Diane Finley : Mr. Chairman, I did explain I do have a time limitation. The Chair : Okay. Hon. Diane Finley : Actually, it's important to recognize, when we talk about reducing the backlog, that it's part of a three-pronged approach, with extra resources. The legislation is not sufficient in itself to do this. I've acknowledged that every step of the way. But I would take issue with what you are saying about the stakeholders.

I have a list of ethnic communities: the Belarusian Canadian Alliance, the Canadian Chinese Association, the Canadian Polish Congress, the Russian Chamber of Commerce, and numerous others. I have a long list of business associations. I have all members of FETCO, and I was told this was the first time that all of FETCO's members agreed, that something was a good thing, and that includes Air Canada, Bell Canada, Canada Post, CNR, CPR, Iron Ore, NAV Canada, Purolator, Telus. We're talking about a wide range of groups.

We're also talking about a wide range of ethnic stakeholders who recognize that this is going to help them. Not only the legislation but the extra resources and the administrative changes will all help to put-- Ms. Colleen Beaumier : Could you table that list for us, please, Minister? The Chair : Mr. Bezan is next for a minute or two. Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake, CPC) : Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to thank the minister for appearing. Ms. Chow was talking about the imbalance, in her opinion, in where workers are being applied for in western Canada, and not enough doctors....

In my riding of Selkirk—Interlake, it would be great if we could bring in 15 to 20 doctors right now. At the same time, our manufacturing industry, the hotel and restaurant trade, the tourism industry, and the construction industry all need probably 300 to 500 workers right now. That's why you get this imbalance in the number of people needing cooks, carpenters, welders, doctors, and so on down the list--they just aren't there. Can you briefly talk about how the situation today hasn't served us well in Canada? It hasn't served immigrants well because we have his huge backlog.

We really need to look at making sure we have the flexibility to meet the needs of our economy, businesses, families, and immigrants. Hon. Diane Finley : Because it takes so long to get people here, we've had tremendous pressure from a wide range of employers across the country to get them the help they need. We're not training enough people in the skilled trades, for example. Recently a skilled trades school couldn't open because it couldn't get enough skilled tradespeople to finish it.

We've been under a lot of pressure to help these people keep going with their businesses, which means we've expanded the temporary foreign workers program deliberately. This summer we'll be launching a program called the Canadian experience class. We announced this in Budget 2007. It will allow certain temporary foreign workers, as well as foreign university graduates of Canadian schools with Canadian work experience, to apply for permanent residence from within the country.

So we're tearing down the wall between the permanent and temporary streams in a deliberate effort to get more people here sooner, and get them into the jobs that need to be filled so they can succeed and so that Canada can succeed. The Chair : After a final comment from Mr. Wilson, we will thank the minister.

Mr. Blair Wilson (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, Ind.) : Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Madam Minister. This committee has done a lot of hard and diligent work. We've heard from many witnesses on this issue. When it comes to legislation, I try to understand the purpose behind the legislation and why we are passing these types of laws. I hear today that the purpose of this legislation design is to get rid of the backlog, to try to deal with that backlog and manage that inventory. There are two ways we can manage that inventory.

We can let more Canadians in faster and get their names out of the backlog, or we can shut down the application list and completely get rid of the backlog. You and the bureaucrats working with you have preferred to do the latter, instead of dealing with the backlog and letting more Canadians in quicker. We let in 262,000 Canadians when I first got elected here, and last year we let in 36,000 fewer. I don't see that as progress. The riding I represent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is home to many families of new immigrants. Ms.

Minister, what assurances can you give these families in my riding that the changes will not affect family unification?

(1640) The Chair : Minister. Hon. Diane Finley : There are two parts to that answer. First, our objective is not to get rid of the backlog. Getting rid of the backlog is a means to achieving our objective of getting more immigrants here faster. We want to get families reunited faster. That's part of our mandate under IRPA, and that's why in many of the classes under family class we are doing the processing up to 40% faster. The Chair : On behalf of the committee, Minister, I want to thank you for being here today. As you know, we will hopefully produce a report by Thursday.

Thank you for the very valuable information you have given us today. Thank you, Minister. The Chair : We will try to resume our meeting as we continue with

part 6 of Bill C-50 . I want to welcome the deputy minister again to our meeting, and also Andrea Lyon, assistant deputy minister of strategic and program policy, and Les Linklater, director general of the immigration branch. Welcome to all of you today. I don't have to brief you on what the procedure is, so I'll just pass it right over to you, Mr. Fadden, Mr. Linklater, or Andrea.

(1645) Mr. Richard Fadden (Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration) : We thought we would just start with questions, since we are part of the minister's package. The Chair : Very good. That's even better. Maybe I'll go directly to Mr. Bevilacqua, who might have questions for you. I'm sure he does. The witnesses chose not to go into any statements, which will give us the opportunity to go directly to questions. Mr. Bevilacqua. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : That's a novel approach, but it's welcome.

I guess the question I have to begin with is—and I don't ask this in a facetious way, but a sincere way—how are things going with this bill? You've travelled extensively across the country. You have paid attention to the hearings that are going on in the parliamentary committee. Quite frankly, I know of all your efforts you've made to communicate with Canadians, including with editorial boards. You've done a lot of work on this. The message that I get, and that we collectively get from people who appear in front of us as witnesses, is not that positive.

I mean this in a non-partisan way: there are major, major concerns about the issue of the powers the minister will have. There are major concerns about not just the substance but the way this whole project actually rolled out: introducing it in the budget bill, the lack of consultation, and things being pre-imposed. Right? But those concerns could easily have been erased. I was struck by something the minister said. She said she wanted to thank the committee for the great work it had done on lost Canadians.

It would have been simpler for everybody, and we would probably have achieved a better product, had we been given the same opportunity on this particular file— An hon. member: That's true. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua: —because at the end of the day, whether you're sitting on this side or on the other side, the bottom line for us is how to improve the quality of life for people who want to come to Canada and who are in Canada. That's what drives us; that's why we're in public life.

So when things like this happen, I personally feel cheated, in the sense that we were not given the opportunity to contribute as much as we could have. I know the hard work the bureaucracy does on these files, but I just think there would have been a better way to deal with this issue, had the form and the process been a little bit more open, more transparent, and more accountable, and had we, as parliamentarians, been included more. Quite frankly, we are now left with very little choice, Mr. Chairman, but to say that the vast majority of people who appeared in front of us didn't agree with the bill.

I think we could have done a much better job for the minister had she given us the opportunity to study the issue in depth and to make proposals. I'd like you to comment on that. Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr. Chairman, let me start with the second part of Mr. Bevilacqua's question. You're not only an MP, you have an “honourable” before your name, so you will know that it's not appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy.

I think there is a link between their Advantage Canada commitments in the last budget, two budgets ago, and there's an economic component to this, but I simply have to decline comment on that. I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment on the government's legislative strategy. I think the minister has commented on a couple of occasions, and she has explained it, I think, fairly well. On the first part of your question, I think my colleagues and I, and the minister, as you say, have gone across the country and have talked to a lot of people.

As I think is the case with any kind of legislation like this, the amendments are technical in nature and the bill itself is quite complex. I think there is a mixed reaction. I don't think everybody is in favour, and I certainly don't think everybody is against it. My sense, as we went across the country, is that as people talked about it and as they came to understand it better, they came to understand the objectives of the government and were broadly supportive. That's not true across the board.

I certainly was told on a couple of occasions that they thought it was the worst idea since the black plague, but I was also told by some stakeholders that it was a very good idea and that it was high time the government did something. So in terms of the people I spoke to or my colleagues spoke to, I think on balance we would come out with a view that the response was generally positive. The list the minister was drawing from a few minutes ago I think contained 48 ethnic groups who said they were supportive. So it's not all negative.

(1650) Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : I guess maybe the government side did not invite these groups to appear in front of the committee— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : They did. They just didn't show up. Hon. Maurizio Bevilacqua : —or maybe they refused to appear. I'm not sure. I'm not passing judgment here. I can only judge from what I heard from the witnesses. As I'm sure you and the department will review the comments, you will find that I don't think I'm misrepresenting the facts as I see them. I just would have hoped, really, that we could have in fact participated more in this reform. Now, quite frankly, Mr.

Fadden, what we're left with is to issue a report in a couple of days that I don't think is going to do justice to the issue at hand, and that's a major concern I have. Thank you. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Bevilacqua. Mr. St-Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to follow up on Mr. Bevilacqua's comments. Mention was made of people who have had a change of heart about the bill. However, there are more people who were initially on side and who have now withdrawn their support.

The explanation for this, as I see it, is that this bill was initially presented as a means of reducing the backlog, when in fact that isn't the case. Investing more resources and improving productivity will help to reduce the backlog, but overall, changing the selection order of people in the queue will not really change anything. Regarding the Canada-Quebec Accord that I've discussed with the minister, I didn't want to get into specifics at the time, but I would now like to settle this matter. Clause 188 of the bill introduces

section 87.3 of the Act. In my opinion, subsection (3) is the heart of the legislative provision. It states the following:

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), the Minister may give instructions with respect to the processing of applications and requests, including instructions (

a) establishing categories of applications or requests to which the instructions apply; (

b) establishing an order, by category or otherwise, for the processing of applications or requests; (

c) setting the number of applications or requests, by category or otherwise, to be processed in any year; and (

d) providing for the disposition of applications and requests, including those made subsequent to the first application or request. There are no clear stipulations that these instructions would not target persons selected by the Government of Quebec. The minister said that this was not the intent of the act. If the committee wants to be sure that the current spirit of the Canada-Quebec Accord will be respected and that the minister will not be able to intervene, then a specific provision should be added to clarify that these instructions will not apply to Quebec. Is my

interpretation correct? Mr. Richard Fadden : In several respects, Mr. Chairman, your

interpretation is correct. As the minister stated, each act is drafted differently. This act does not refer to the federal government's commitments to Quebec, but rather to its obligations towards all provinces. Over the past few decades, not only has the Government of Canada respected the terms of the Canada-Quebec Accord, it has also respected the terms of all other provincial accords. There is nothing in this bill that will interfere with these accords. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Does the Canada-Quebec Accord give any indication of what the federal government's processing times should be? Mr.

Richard Fadden : If memory serves me well, no, it does not. However, the various annexes to the Accord deal with relations between the Quebec department and the federal department. Two committees were established to administer matters arising from the Accord every year. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I see. What if the Standing Committee on Finance—not this committee, since it will not be voting on the bill—were to add a provision stating that under no circumstances shall these instructions apply to the Government of Quebec?

Could other instructions designed to move other immigrants to the front of the queue delay the processing of applications from Quebec?

(1655) Mr. Richard Fadden : In fact, the minister plans to do the exact opposite of what you're suggesting. She has indicated on several occasions that she has no intention of not respecting commitments made to the provinces. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say that one of the first sets of instructions will be about the priority consideration to be given to provincial accords. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Simply guaranteeing that your minister will uphold the terms of the Accord just doesn't cut it, as far as lawmakers are concerned. They had made provision in the act for a refugee appeal section.

However, this provision has yet to be implemented. Another piece of legislation brought forward by the Bloc Québécois needs to be adopted in order for this provision to be implemented. Your assurances are not convincing. In other words, you're telling me to rely on the good faith of the minister and of future ministers. Mr. Richard Fadden : Yes, but also on the record of citizenship and immigration ministers, not just in this government, but in the past government as well. Since the ratification of the Canada-Quebec Accord, the federal government has always fulfilled its commitments. Mr.

Thierry St-Cyr : Getting back to the backlog, in my presentation, I argued that moving someone to the front of the queue doesn't change the actual number of people in the queue or the average wait time. Obviously, the person who has been moved to the front of the queue won't have to wait as long. Quite apart from the provisions calling for additional resources to be invested in the system, the measure set out in

Part 6 of Bill C-50 is not designed to reduce the number of people in the queue, but rather to allow people at the back of the line to move to the front, in order to satisfy our economic requirements. Is that not in fact the purpose of this provision? Mr. Richard Fadden : Yes and no. I agree with your second point. One of the bill's aims is to allow the minister to select individuals using ministerial instructions. One of the aims of the proposed legislation is to address the backlog. How are we planning to do this? Once the ministerial instructions have been issued, the backlog will stop growing.

The department plans to invest 70% of its resources in eliminating the backlog. It also plans to follow through on two or three of the initiatives mentioned by Ms. Finley in her presentation. If the bill is adopted, there would thus be two categories of individuals who could apply to come to Canada: those who are already in the queue and those who will make up the new category, or working inventory. They will remain a part of the working inventory for a maximum of one year and in time, the current backlog will be eliminated. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : I see.

Regarding the current backlog, or working inventory, what can be done to process applications more expeditiously than in the past? Because of the instructions, will people be less interested in applying for immigration, meaning that there will be fewer applications to process? Mr. Richard Fadden : Absolutely not. One of the major changes proposed in the bill would see the Government of Canada processing only a certain number of immigration applications every year. The problem encountered most often is that we accept between 240,000 and 260,000 applications a year, but only 400,000 can be processed.

We're dealing with a significant imbalance. With this legislation, the government will be able to say that anyone can apply to immigrate to Canada in a given year, but the department will only process a limited number of applications. Applications over and above the limit will not be processed. Applicants whose applications are not processed will be able to reapply the following year. Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : So then, it is a purely mathematical equation. These individuals are not taken into account in the calculations and are no longer considered to be part of the backlog.

Yet, their applications will not have been processed. It's a clever bit of accounting. Mr. Richard Fadden : It is not a clever accounting trick, but rather a policy change that the government is proposing to Parliament in order to limit the number of applications to be processed. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fadden. Madam Chow. Ms. Olivia Chow : I see that in the estimates there is a $2.6 million cut due to Budget 2007 cost-efficiency savings. What got cut? Where did you find the efficiencies?

(1700) Mr. Richard Fadden : I think what we did, Mr. Chairman, was ask all of the elements of the department to reduce their ongoing expenditures by an amount that made up $2.6 million. I think every department of government has slight excesses in their budgets. We didn't cut a program. We didn't significantly reduce one program. We reduced, for example, travel a little bit. We reduced training a little bit. We went across the board. Ms.

Olivia Chow : Would you be able to table to this committee what was taken out of each of the departments so that we know precisely what category the $2.6 million came from and what the reduction was? Can you provide us with that detail? Mr. Richard Fadden : I'll do what I can, but I doubt if I can do it down to the last dollar. Ms. Olivia Chow : It doesn't have to be to the last dollar. You know, $2.6 million is not a small sum. Mr. Richard Fadden : We'll make an effort. Ms. Olivia Chow : Thank you. Have you ever advertised before

an act or a bill in front of the House has been approved? Mr. Richard Fadden : My understanding is that CIC has not. Ms. Olivia Chow : CIC has not done so. So this will be the first time that money is spent on a bill. Thank you. Of the $2.4 million that is in the budget in front of us, for the government advertising program, on page 10 of your estimates, you spent $1.1 million, so you have another $1.3 million left. What do you plan to use it for? Mr. Richard Fadden : I think it's a broadening of the communication effort that has gone on already.

The intention, I think, is to use a large part of it in mainstream media. Ms. Olivia Chow : On what issue? Mr. Richard Fadden : Explaining this bill. Ms. Olivia Chow : So the entire $2.4 million is really targeted for Bill C-50 ? Mr. Richard Fadden : Yes, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Olivia Chow : So that would be rolling out later on. It would be the first time. In terms of the 2006 budget, on the immigration

section alone the budget is $244.8 million. It's now down to $164.86 million in the main estimates for 2008-09. That's a cut of 49%, according to my math. How much was transferred and how much was cut? Mr. 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. Ms. Olivia Chow : 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 : Yes. Ms. Olivia Chow : 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 : That's not a valid point of order because we are having the minister back for estimates, and in fairness-- Ms. Olivia Chow : We are? The Chair : Yes, we are. Ms. Olivia Chow : Perfect. Thank you. I'll save those questions for later. The Chair : In fairness to the deputy, I think we'll have to confine it to Bill C-50. Ms. Olivia Chow : Thank you. I didn't know that. I will stay with Bill C-50. The Chair : Okay. Ms.

Olivia Chow : On Bill C-50 , then, if we are to send information in terms of instructions, why would we not do it through regulations? Mr. 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. Ms. Olivia Chow : It looks like the application of these instructions is even beyond the review of the courts. Is that the department's analysis of it? Mr. Richard Fadden : No, it absolutely is not. It is quite the contrary. Ms. Olivia Chow : 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? Mr. 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. Ms. Olivia Chow : 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?

(1705) Mr. 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 : You have one minute and 25 seconds. Ms. Olivia Chow : 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? Mr. 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 : Thank you very much. That completes the seven-minute round. No, it doesn't. Mr. Bezan will complete the seven-minute round. Mr. James Bezan : 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? Mr. 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. Mr.

James Bezan : We've established, then, that there's no way we can do that discriminatory policy, so now it comes down to how we look at these instructions to have the flexibility, and that's the whole reason we're going with ministerial instruction: to have the flexibility to meet the needs—of Canadians, of Canadian businesses, of family reunification, as well as of those of the immigrant community who want to come to Canada.

Can you, then, talk about how the flexibility ties in with the instructions, rather than having something set in stone and going on in perpetuity, which we have right now and which hasn't served Canada well? Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr. Chairman, the basic system has us treating every file we receive, and fundamentally treating it in the order we receive it. There is no direct connection on the economic side with any labour market demand in Canada.

One of the things the instructions will allow the minister to do is tell the department, after consultation with the provinces, the private sector, and civil society, that there are a variety of occupational groups who deserve priority treatment. At the same time, the instructions are phrased broadly enough that the minister can also provide for program priorities. I think she has indicated on one or two occasions that she would probably use this to indicate to the department that we'd have to continue to give priority to provincial nominee programs, the Canada-Quebec accord, and the family unification programs.

Fundamentally, though, in developing the instructions, the minister is going to have to have regard to the operating principles that guide everything that happens in IRPA, and there are three objectives: there's an economic one, there's a family reunification one, and there's a humanitarian one. I have not seen any indication that the government is not going to do this, but if they did not do it, there are plenty of recourses to force the government to rethink this.

(1710) Mr. James Bezan : So we're going to make sure we respect the three fundamental goals. The instructions are being issued. But what consultation process are we looking at then in making sure the community at large, civil society here in Canada, is being listened to and that we're meeting the labour market needs we have? Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr. Chairman, first I should say that we have not dotted every “i” and crossed every “t”. Parliament hasn't passed this legislation yet, so I'm giving you a preliminary indication.

First of all, we want to get, at a national level, the views of the Bank of Canada and HRSD on the national labour market. The bill requires the minister to consult with the provinces, so we're going to develop a process whereby we will ask all of the provinces to try to articulate for us, to the extent they can, what their labour market is like. At the same time, we'll talk with representatives of the private sector and with representatives of civil society. We haven't, as I said a moment ago, sorted out exactly how we're going to do it.

We're hoping we can do it on either a sectoral or a regional basis, to make it as efficient as we can while still providing everybody with an opportunity to be heard. Mr. James Bezan : So the criticisms we've heard earlier about this committee not being involved, although the committee has the power at any point in time to study any issue they feel is important and develop policy to recommend back to the House of Commons and to the government.... We're going to have the consultations as required, I guess, as we move forward in meeting the needs we have here in Canada.

Could you just clarify for us, though, how the concurrent processing will proceed with respect to applications processed under instructions and applications from the existing backlog? Mr. Richard Fadden : The intention, as I was saying in reply to an earlier question, is that once the instructions come into force, the existing backlog is going to be frozen.

The bill provides that we have to deal with people who are in the existing backlog under the existing rules, so by and large, we're going to go “first in, first out”, and our current thinking is that we will allocate something like 70% of our operational resources to eating away at the backlog. At the same time, we'll be writing, on a pilot basis, to some 50,000 of the older files asking whether they want to be sustained. As I told Ms. Chow, we would also be mining the files in order to determine whether any of them can be referred to the provinces. So we will keep eating away at the backlog.

The key there, though, is that it's frozen. We're not going to be able to add to it. On the working inventory file, where we hope to allocate something on the order of 30% of our ongoing resources, the ministerial instructions will be used to enable us to pick and choose those that reflect their priorities, and the files that don't meet those priorities will be returned to the individuals at the end of a processing period; it may be a year or it may be a year and a half. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fadden. That completes the seven minutes. We'll go to five-minute rounds.

We have until about 6:15, and then we're going to break for about a 15-minute supper break and bring on our witnesses after that. Mr. Karygiannis. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Fadden, in the time this minister has been the minister, and you being the deputy minister, how many times would you say the minister has not followed your direction, your suggestions? The Chair : I am not going to allow that question. The rules are clear and I have them in front of me. I don't want to eat into people's time by reading those rules out, but I'll read them if necessary.

(1715) Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Allow the witness to answer if he wants to. The Chair : No, I can't-- Mr. James Bezan : On a point of order, Mr. Chair, in

chapter 20 of Marleau and Montpetit, under the role of the committee-- Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Stop the clock, Mr. Chair. Mr. James Bezan : --it is very specific that civil servants are not required to answer policy questions as they relate to the government. The Chair : Order. I have it in front of me. Mr. James Bezan : They are usually excused from those types of policy issues. The Chair : Yes, I have it here in Marleau and Montpetit, but I don't want to go into reading all of this. Mr. Fadden, you don't have to answer that question. Move on, Mr. Karygiannis. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : Do you want to stop the clock, Mr. Chair? The Chair : There will be no clock stopping. Go ahead. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Well, we're going to get a lot of points of order here. Mr. Fadden, you were asked, as well as the minister, to provide figures and facts for us of what the expenses were to promote Bill C-50 , travel of different ministers, and I was wondering.... You did get that e-mail, I'm sure. Do you have those facts and figures? Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr. Chairman, the aggregate figures were the ones the minister quoted when you were asking questions earlier. They were $1.1 million.

I do have the figures that relate to the cost we've incurred to undertake the stakeholder and media visits, if those are the ones you are referring to. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Would that include your visit to Toronto when this committee was travelling, where you met with three people from the media? Does that include the Prime Minister's trip to Toronto to point out his facts and figures to the Indian gala dinner? Mr. Richard Fadden : No, Mr. Chairman. They only relate to CIC. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : What are the other ministers'...when they travel and they are promoting immigration? Can you not get those numbers?

Mr. Richard Fadden : No, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : In the advertising of $1.6 million, I believe it is-- Mr. Richard Fadden : It is $1.1 million. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : $1.1 million. Is the word “ C-50 ” mentioned anywhere in there? Mr. Richard Fadden : Let me look. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : I'm sure the deputy must know the ads. At the end of the day they were okayed by the department. It was $1.1 million. Mr. Richard Fadden : I know, Mr. Chairman, that we referred to legislation before Parliament; I just don't know if we used the expression “Bill C-50 ”. Here it is.

I have it now, if you'll give me 30 seconds. I do not see “C-50”, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Are all the ads identical in all the newspapers? Mr. Richard Fadden : I don't know, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Fadden, sir, your department, in which on a daily basis you are hands on--and you have your folks here with you--okayed a particular ad. Are the ads similar in all the papers? Yes or no. Mr. Richard Fadden : I would say they are similar, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Are there any words omitted from one ethnicity to another? Mr. Richard Fadden : I have no idea, Mr. Chairman.

I would assume not, since the objective was to provide the same information. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Would you undertake, sir, to advise this committee whether all the ads that were given out for translation were the same ads, and if all the translations were done correctly? Mr. Richard Fadden : Yes, Mr. Chairman. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Fadden, would you also undertake to let this committee know in how many of those papers the minister gave interviews? Mr. Richard Fadden : I would be happy to ask that and report. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : As well as editorials that were written supporting the position of the department. Mr. Richard Fadden : I'm not sure I understand the last part of your question. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : I'm sure you can call for the newspapers of that particular day. All the ads appeared last week. You can call the newspaper and see whether the minister gave an interview. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : A point of order. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : You know, I'm sick and tired of your points of order. And then, Mr. Chair-- Mr. Ed Komarnicki : A point of order means you need to stop. The Chair : There's a point of order. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : And then, Mr. Chair— The Chair : Order, please. There's a point of order. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : The question was fair, Mr. Chair. The Chair : I will determine that. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I raised a point of order and you need to hear it, and then the chair will decide whether it's appropriate or not—and that's not your job. The Chair : On your point of order, Mr. Komarnicki. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : If I understood the question, it's asking the department to go to various newspapers to see if there are editorials and to get copies of them, which is something the member or anybody else can do.

I don't think that's an appropriate request to make of anybody. If Mr. Karygiannis wants to know if there's an editorial in some paper, he ought to go and get it. If he wants to do it, he has the means to do it. But we ought not send departmental people searching to see if there are editorials in papers. That's something he can do, and I would say it's an improper request, and—

(1720) Hon. Jim Karygiannis : If you've got an ad in this newspaper and you've got an interview by the minister in the paper, don't try to tell me— The Chair : Order, please. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I object to the provision of that request. The Chair : To that point of order, Mr. St-Cyr. [ Translation ] Mr. Thierry St-Cyr : Mr. Chairman, we agreed in the past that when someone raises a point of order, the clock would stop, so that the member would not lose out on any time. If the clock isn't stopped, there will be a flurry of points of order calling for clarifications, rulings or comments.

By stopping the clock, you can hear what is being said and rule that it is not in fact a point of order. [ English ] The Chair : To that point of order, Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : I have a suggestion, Mr. Chair. When a point of order is called for—and the parliamentary secretary seems to be calling a whole lot—and once a determination is made, if there's another point of order, the time taken should be deducted from the parliamentary secretary's speaking time versus deducting it from the person who's speaking over here. This can apply to everybody.

The Chair : There is no point of order to begin with, but it's a valid observation, which might be difficult for— Hon. Jim Karygiannis : On the point of order, Mr. Chair. The Chair : If you're not going to hear the chair, I might as well adjourn this meeting. Do you want me to do that? An hon. member: Sure. The Chair: It's not an established practice and it's not in the rules that we not take the time of a point of order from the member who is speaking. That generally comes out of the member's time.

I know we could run into an avalanche of points of order, but generally speaking, that's the deterrent for people bringing up foolish points of order, that it would be deducted. However, it's not in the rules that it should be deducted from a member's time, so we haven't been deducting that time. I will continue on, unless there are more points of order. Mr. Komarnicki, do you have a point of order again? Mr. Ed Komarnicki : Just on the point of order, I'll have to agree with Mr.

Karygiannis on that point, that if a point of order is made—and there are legitimate reasons for making a point of order—and it were deducted from his speaking time, and there were a series of points of order, it could literally shut him down from having any time to question at all. So it would seem to me, and I would agree with Mr. St-Cyr here, that a point of order needs to be made, because there is a legitimate point to it, but it shouldn't be deducted from the member's speaking time. The Chair : Is it agreed that it should not be deducted from a member's speaking time? Mr.

Ed Komarnicki : I think we could just have that, generally speaking. The Chair : Is this what you want? Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Yes, so I have another minute. The Chair : Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Mr. Chair, I think at some point in time we would want to get into what I suggested, because when somebody takes up time with points of order that are frivolous, it means somebody else doesn't get to speak. I think the member who raises those frivolous points of order is the one who should have less time to make up for his frivolousness.

The Chair : Is it agreed then, generally, that we will not deduct the time from the member's point of order? Mr. Wajid Khan : I'd like to say something to that. The Chair : Mr. Khan. Mr. Wajid Khan : Mr. Chair, if the questioning pertains to the important issues at hand, as was the case in the first hour when the minister was here, there will not be a whole lot of points of order, but if we start to go off track here and there, then the points of order will happen. So if we stay on the important subject and ask relevant questions, there will not be a problem. So let's try to do that for a change. Hon.

Jim Karygiannis : On that point of order, Mr. Chair— The Chair : I think I have had Mr. Karygiannis' hand up for a while. Then I'm going to go to Mr. Wilson and then back to Mr. Komarnicki, and then I'm shutting down this point. Mr. Karygiannis. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, in the House, if somebody rises on a point of order, the clock stops when somebody is speaking. We have seen today demonstration after demonstration of the Conservative members jumping up and down on points of order if they didn't like the line of questioning. The minister is here.

This government wants to be accountable; this government wants to be transparent. So if the Conservative members do not like the line of questioning when the minister is here to answer, then they should jump around the corner and jump on a point of order there. They should not interrupt somebody on a point of order unless it's something substantial. The Chair : Okay. Well, we've already eaten up 10 minutes on this point of order, and I'll eat up whatever time you want me to and give Mr. Fadden a rest down there. Mr. Wilson.

(1725) Mr. Blair Wilson : Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can't believe the committee is still trying to figure out how to organize itself after 27 months of being elected here. It was previously agreed to by this committee, Mr. Chair, that if there were points of order during the testimony of the minister and these witnesses, they would be taken out of their own time. That was previously agreed to. Now, we as a committee can decide whatever rules we want as a committee. That was previously agreed to. That's how you dealt with it before.

If the committee wishes to change that and come up with some new rules, that's fine, but up until this point, the committee had previously agreed with the protocol that you have been following. You've done it perfectly well. The Chair : I think you have that wrong, Mr. Wilson, because I don't recall that at all. Mr. Komarnicki is next. And we will try to get back on track after you've made this submission. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : I don't agree that that's the fact.

But I want a ruling on the specific point that asking the department or a department official, or anyone, to get an editorial from some newspaper is not an appropriate request for information and it should not be allowed. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, before you do that, I would just like to remind the parliamentary secretary that the department has a clipping section; clippings are done by the department and they're provided to the minister as well as to the parliamentary secretary. If an editorial is favourable, they sit there and wave at it.

So if that editorial is favourable and it's right next to the page where they advertised, excuse me, but put your money where your mouth is. The Chair : Okay, I've heard enough on this. There's nothing in the rules, according to the clerk, that would allow me to rule one way or another on this. Whether or not it's an appropriate point of order we can't determine. I'm sure if Mr. Fadden cannot get the information that's been requested, that's just fine, because it's not covered in the rules. Let's try to deal with the fact-- Mr. Jim Karygiannis: [ Inaudible--Editor ] The Chair: Mr.

Karygiannis, would you please stop interrupting me when I'm speaking. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Do I have an additional two minutes? The Chair : This is what I'm trying to determine here from the committee. Does the committee wish to follow that kind of procedure? We would add some time to the member who was interrupted by the points of order. We would stop the clock when a member is interrupted. Is this what we're going to do? Some hon. members: Agreed. The Chair: That would give you, Mr. Karygiannis, a couple of minutes more. Please proceed. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr.

Fadden, you do have a clipping section, and you look at mainstream media as well as ethnic media that you clip from and you translate for the minister if there's a contentious issue or something that should be brought to her attention. Am I correct, sir? Mr. Richard Fadden : We certainly have a clipping

section for the mainstream media. We do keep a watching brief on the ethnic media. We do not systematically translate everything. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Well, you know what newspapers you advertised in. Was it the department that chose the newspapers you advertised in or was it Public Works? Mr. Richard Fadden : It was the agent, sir. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : So you instructed the agent who to go after, or was it Public Works that was instructed? Mr. Richard Fadden : It was Public Works. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : So you asked Public Works, “These are the newspapers that we're going to go after”. Mr.

Richard Fadden : No, Mr. Chairman, what we said was we have a certain amount of money and we're interested in passing these messages to the ethnic media in Canada. The agent of record and Public Works made a determination. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : It's then very simple, Mr. Fadden. You go to the agent on record; you find out in what newspapers it was published. Also, at that point in time, you come back to this committee and say that the minister had given these many interviews to so-and-so. There is evidence, sir, and it points out that the minister gave a lot of interviews to people whom you placed ads with. Mr.

Richard Fadden : I'm not sure, Mr. Chairman, what's wrong with the minister giving interviews. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Well, let us know which newspapers she gave interviews to in respect to the same week an ad was appearing. The Chair : Well, we've already determined that Mr. Fadden may not be able to get that information for us. There's nothing in the rules that would compel him to come back with that information. So Mr. Fadden can take your question in whatever way he wants to. If he wishes to get back to the committee with that information, fine; if he doesn't, well, that's fine as well.

In the meantime, your time has expired. Hon. Jim Karygiannis : Mr. Chair, Mr. Fadden said they do have a watch on when the minister appears. So it's a fair question. Which newspapers were given ads? Which newspapers ran the advertising? The Chair : Time has expired. I'm going to Mr. Carrier. (1730) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day, Mr. Fadden. You already know that I am... [ English ] The Chair : Order. Ms. Beaumier, order please. Are we back on track again? Mr. Carrier, please. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : I will try again.

You already know that I am quite disappointed to see immigration included in a budget bill. I would have liked us to be able to discuss the issue more thoroughly and to take the time to consult different groups. I'm going to ask you some technical questions about this bill that you seem to know quite well. Earlier, you said that the backlog will stop growing, that instead, you will process current applications and select the ones that correspond to the priority categories identified by the minister. Could you tell me again how many applications are usually accepted?

Do you plan to increase that number or maintain current levels? Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr. Chairman, we have no intention of changing the number of applications we accept until the instructions have been issued and we see how the system works. Nevertheless, we agree that it would be logical in future to accept more applications. Mr. Robert Carrier : Then surely you can appreciate that by increasing the numbers, it will be important to ensure that additional immigrants are properly integrated into each province. Mr. Richard Fadden : Absolutely, sir. We would not want to act without consulting the provinces. Mr.

Robert Carrier : That's good. What percentage of applications are accepted? [ English ] Mr. Richard Fadden : Do you remember? [ Translation ] Mr. Les Linklater (Director General, Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration) : In the case of skilled workers, the acceptance rate is about 48%, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Robert Carrier : Which figures are you using? Mr. Les Linklater : I'm sorry, but it's in fact 80%. Mr. Robert Carrier : How many applications do you want to accept? Mr. Richard Fadden : Normally, anywhere from 240,000 to 265,000. Mr. Robert Carrier : Thank you.

That's the figure I was looking for. Mr. Richard Fadden : I'm sorry, but I misunderstood you. Mr. Robert Carrier : You mentioned that you were going to be freezing the backlog once the instructions take effect. You did not talk about a timetable for processing applications, but out of consideration for the individuals who have already submitted their application, it would be important for you to give them an answer as soon as possible, using the criteria set out in the new legislation. In your opinion, should a new timetable not be implemented quickly? Mr. Richard Fadden : Mr.

Chairman, the minister and the department certainly intend to deal with the backlog as quickly as possible. However, there are a number of variables to contend with each year, notably the number of people who file temporary requests for acceptance. This adds to the backlog of work since the same individuals process both categories of applications. However, we agree with you. Our goal is certainly to deal with the backlog as quickly as possible. Mr. Robert Carrier : Some people maintain that the current point system is far from ideal and does not always jibe with priorities.

When the department examined this bill, was any consideration given to adapting and enhancing its provisions so that each application could at least be processed using an impartial system, instead of according to a list drawn up most likely by the minister and subject to being modified by a new minister? You're going to have a hard time getting people to go along with this, if the lists can change at the whim of the ministers. Mr. Richard Fadden : As Ms.

Finley noted, we looked into the possibility of addressing the problem simply by increasing the number of points given and by changing the way points are allocated internally. We concluded that the act itself needed to be changed to limit the number of applications that are processed every year. As you may already know, the act does not restrict the minister's authority to change the point system. There is nothing in the act preventing her from reviewing the point system once the new provisions have been implemented. Mr.

Robert Carrier : Could members please be quiet so I can put my questions? [ English ] The Chair : That's a very good point. Mr. Carrier has asked for a little bit of quiet. He's being distracted. (1735) [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : It makes it easier for me to ask my questions. [ English ] The Chair : Go ahead, Mr. Carrier. [ Translation ] Mr. Robert Carrier : Regarding the existing Canada-Quebec Accord, the number of immigrants accepted is decided jointly at the request of the Quebec government.

I want some assurances that your efforts to deal with the backlog will not delay the work you still need to do once these applications have been accepted by Quebec. Your department still has work to do to finish processing these applications. Do you acknowledge that these applications still need to be processed expeditiously? Mr. Richard Fadden : Yes, Mr. Chairman. My minister has discussed this matter with her Quebec counterpart. I've also spoken to Quebec's deputy minister. We have assured them that we intend to follow through on our plans and they took us at our word. Mr. Robert Carrier : Fine then.

Thank you. [ English ] The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fadden. Ms. Grewal. Mrs. Nina Grewal : Thank you, Mr. Chair. Can you please tell us what the ministerial instructions can and cannot do? What criteria will the instructions look at in terms of the occupational categories? What sorts of consultations will take place prior to the issuance of any instructions? How will they provide any flexibility and faster processing while continuing to abide by IRPA's three fundamental goals? Mr.

Richard Fadden : As the minister said in her news release of April 8, the government has articulated a number of principles that will be used to formulate the ministerial instructions. First, on the basis of input from federal agencies such as the Bank of Canada and HRSD, organized labour, employers, and the provinces, we will develop a list of priority occupations. The logic is that, by and large, there is not a national labour market in Canada. They're either provincial or regional labour markets. So the minister and the department will be placing a lot of emphasis on consulting with these various groups.

We don't know exactly how we're going to consult right now, but the proposed legislation already says that the instructions have to be reported to the House through the annual plan, and that plan calls for consultations with the provinces. The intention is to complete consultations over the course of the summer and have some in-house review. The minister has to go to cabinet. Then the intention is to issue the instructions some time in mid-autumn. Mrs. Nina Grewal : How can we be certain that ministerial instructions will not be discriminatory?

What checks will prevent instructions from discriminating on the grounds of religion, ethnic origin, and country of origin? Mr. Richard Fadden : As is the case with everything the department does, we're subject to the rules of the charter and the Canadian Human Rights Act. We've had no difficulty having members of the bar suggest to us when there's a potential problem. So we believe that while the department will not discriminate on these bases, because we respect the law and the charter, if there's ever a mistake in that area we will be taken to Federal Court very quickly.

But I want to be clear that a combination of consultations with the provinces, organized labour, the private sector, and civil society is not going to yield instructions that will discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or place of origin. It is inconceivable that all of these people would agree to it. Mrs. Nina Grewal : I'll pass the rest of my time to Mr. Komarnicki. The Chair : Okay. Mr. Ed Komarnicki : You've indicated that the administrative decision could be subject to Federal Court review, and there's been some confusion from some of the witnesses about at what stage or point that would happen.

But Bill C-50 , as it relates to the immigration portion, has to be charter-compliant. Is it correct that they could bring a challenge on the legislation itself if they chose to? Mr. Richard Fadden : I think the rules are fairly clear. Any piece of legislation, regulation, ministerial instruction, or decision by a public servant has to be charter-compliant. The Federal Court Act says that without exception, all of these decisions, by whatever level, are subject to review by the Federal Court. So are the instructions themselves subject to judicial review? Yes, they are.

Is their application by officers of the department subject to judicial review? Yes, it is.

(1740) Mr. Ed Komarnicki : So you have three stages or opportunities where that could happen, and in addition to that, the instruction that is issued by the minister would have to be subject to the general goals of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which you referred to. It would have to have those in mind. Additionally, I think one of the sections talks about its having to support the attainment of the immigration goals established by the Government of Canada. So those would be additional goals that the instruction must meet. Mr. Richard Fadden : I think that's correct, Mr. Chairman.

The basic control mechanism, other than the constitutional ones, is that the instructions that are issued by the minister have to be consistent with the annual plan the government tables in the House of Commons. That is the plan that indicates each year how many people are going to be admitted to Canada in the three categories of federal skilled workers, family reunification, and humanitarian entries. This bill will not change that at all. The annual plan, which sets out the numbers the department is to bring in and the various categories, remains absolutely the same.

What this bill says is that the minister, when she issues instructions, has to take this annual plan, which is tabled in Parliament, into account. It has to be consistent with that plan. The Chair : Thank you, Mr. Fadden. Mr. Telegdi. Hon. Andrew Telegdi : Thank you