Evidence of meeting #2 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was immigration.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Wayne Ganim  Chief Financial Officer, Finance Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Richard Fadden  Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Good morning. Bonjour.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 2, Tuesday, February 10, 2009. The orders of the day are the supplementary estimates 2008-09, vote 1b under Citizenship and Immigration.

We have before us today the honourable Jason Kenney Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. We have Mr. Richard Fadden, who is the deputy minister, and we have Mr. Wayne Ganim, the chief financial officer of the Finance Branch. Good morning, gentlemen.

You all know the drill with this process. The minister gives a few remarks, and then members of the committee will have some comments.

Minister, you may proceed. Thank you for coming.

9:05 a.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Merci beaucoup, monsieur le président. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and colleagues. I am honoured to appear before this important standing committee for the first time as Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. I'm excited by the opportunity that I've been given to build on Canada's proud tradition of immigration as an indispensable part of our prosperity and our model of pluralism. At the same time, I acknowledge that with this opportunity comes a profound responsibility to ensure that immigration leads to rapid and successful integration of newcomers, to see that we stay true to our best traditions of being a refuge for those fleeing persecution, and to enforce Canada's laws in order to protect the safety and security of our citizens.

I'm very eager to work with the members of this committee and indeed all parliamentarians to canvass the best ideas for continuing to improve our immigration, citizenship, and multiculturalism programs. I know that partisanship and honest disagreements will be expressed here and in the House, which of course are entirely appropriate within our system. However, I think we should also acknowledge and celebrate the fact that in Canada there is actually a fairly broad consensus on the big issues facing immigration across the political spectrum. We should be proud of the fact that Canada has avoided some of the divisive debates on immigration that we see elsewhere and that there are very few xenophobic voices in our public discourse on questions like immigration, pluralism, and integration. I would say the differences around this table are largely differences of degree and not differences of kind.

And so I hope that this committee will be a place for thoughtful study and productive debate on how best to address the challenges that we face, particularly during these difficult economic times. For my part, I am very keen to work in a constructive and transparent way with this Committee, and I know that the dedicated officials at Citizenship and Immigration Canada are of a like mind.

I propose to overview recent improvements in our immigration programs and discuss government priorities for the years ahead.

In 2006 our government was elected on a promise of reducing the right of landing fee for permanent residence. We kept our word, reducing it from $975 to $490, which saves a family of six coming to Canada a not inconsiderable $3,000. Our government is welcoming a historically high number of new Canadians. In fact, in 2008 we welcomed the largest number of newcomers ever to Canada's shores, with half a million permanent residents, temporary workers, international students, and live-in caregivers. And with the introduction of the new Canadian experience class, many of those temporary workers and international students, and, in principle, all of the live-in caregivers, will now have a pathway to permanent residency.

A growing immigrant population also means that there are growing demands for immigrant settlement services, of course. These services help new Canadians integrate faster into Canadian society. They fund language training in French and English, job placement programs, résumé writing workshops, and so on. Since we came to office, we've invested an additional $1.4 billion over a five-year period to support settlement programs and services to help newcomers. This represents a 219% increase over 2005 levels. Practically speaking, it means that funding for successful programs like the immigrant settlement and adaptation program, ISAP, has increased from $43 million to $193 million, while language training has seen a threefold increase in the same period. This year's economic action plan also includes an additional $50 million investment in foreign credentials recognition. This will help build on the Prime Minister's recent agreement with first ministers to develop a national framework for foreign credentials recognition.

Mr. Chair, Canada continues to need newcomers, which is why we expect to maintain our levels for permanent residents in 2009.

That's why, after consultations last year with cultural communities, immigration stakeholders, provinces, territories and others, we moved ahead to modernize our immigration system with our Action Plan for Faster Immigration.

This action plan is yielding results. Built on legislative, financial, and administrative measures, we are making progress in reducing waiting times for qualified skilled foreign workers and aligning our immigration system more closely with our labour market needs.

As a result of last year's amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act--as well as $109 million in additional fiscal resources--we are now able to reduce the backlog for federal skilled workers while fast-tracking applications from those with the skills we need most on a national level, such as doctors, nurses, and electricians.

Leading up to February 27 of last year, our backlog of immigration applications had climbed steadily. In terms of the federal skilled workers stream, it exploded from less than 50,000 in 1993, to 363,000 people in 2000, to approximately 600,000 in 2008. When I announced the “Action Plan for Faster Immigration”, I promised we would reduce this backlog for the first time in a generation.

I am pleased to announce that we have kept that commitment. The growth in the backlog has ended. The backlog of skilled worker applicants who applied before February 27, 2008, now stands at approximately 515,000, a significant drop of 15%. We expect the backlog to be reduced even further by the end of this year. A lower backlog means faster processing times, less red tape, and, at the end of the day, faster immigration.

Contrast this to where Canada would have been without our plan had Parliament continued to let the backlog grow. Had we not taken action, official department projections indicate that the backlog of skilled workers and their families who were already in the system waiting to be processed would have reached 700,000 cases by next year, representing a rise of 15% rather than a cut of 15%.

We are also working to ensure that other streams of immigration work better. We have expanded our provincial nominee programs, creating greater flexibility and a closer alignment of our immigration intake with our regional economic needs. It's important to note that other avenues, such as provincial nominee programs, are open to those who do not fall within the priority occupations identified in the ministerial instructions under the action plan.

We have also created the exciting new Canadian experience class, which now provides a pathway to permanent residency, and eventually citizenship, for international students and qualified temporary foreign workers. As a result, it makes Canada more competitive as we seek to attract the best and the brightest.

Mr. Chair, our government is also upholding Canada's humanitarian obligations to refugees and the United Nations continues to call our system a model for other nations.

But our system still faces challenges. Two key concerns have been the lengthy times required to process claims and the number of vacancies at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

This is why, in January, I announced appointments of 13 members and three reappointed members to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I am optimistic that this will serve to improve the processing times for refugee claims.

I also anticipate that there will be a very large number of additional appointments in the very near future.

On a related note, I have reviewed with great interest the committee's hearings in the last Parliament on the issue of Iraqi refugees. I've always been a passionate supporter of the humanitarian dimension of our immigration system. This is something I'm keen on strengthening as Minister of Immigration.

Last year, our government, at the behest of the UNHCR, committed to increase by more than 50% the number of resettled refugees from the Middle East in response to the Iraqi refugee crisis. I'm happy to announce further increases today. I have instructed my officials to increase the number of privately sponsored refugees that Canada will accept from its mission at Damascus by at least 1,300 persons for 2009. We chose Damascus because that's where the majority of Iraqi refugees apply. Thus, in 2009, Canada will resettle approximately 2,500 refugees under its private sponsorship program and 1,400 through the government-assisted refugees program through the Damascus mission. This represents a fourfold increase over 2005, when approximately 800 Iraqi refugees were accepted under both programs combined. It also means that Canada is welcoming more Iraqi refugees to this country than any other country in the world, except the United States.

Last month, I travelled to Pakistan and India, where I witnessed first-hand the operations of some of our country's busiest visa offices. Along with the professionalism and dedication of these officers, I was impressed with their attention to security matters.

Such attention is crucial, so that we do not admit visa applicants who could pose a threat to this country and so that we weed out unscrupulous applicants who might use phony documents or claims to support their applications.

We will also work to ensure the legitimacy of immigration representatives around the world, to expand warnings about these fraudulent representatives and to combat illegal activities such as human trafficking.

I would welcome the committee to examine these complex matters and provide me with input on how we might best address them.

Mr. Chair, each year, we grant citizenship to more than 200,000 people from around the world. But citizenship is not the end of their story. It is another chapter, as these people take on the rights that citizenship affords them and the responsibilities that go with it.

That is why the government has decided to bring together the multicultural and citizenship programs.

I know I'm running out of time, so let me cut to the end of my written remarks, Mr. Chairman.

The multiculturalism program will also naturally compliment the robust settlement programs of CIC, helping to advance the goal of faster and more successful integration of newcomers into our society. Restoring the link between multiculturalism and citizenship is a logical extension of Canada's commitment to promoting our national identity.

Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee. My officials and I would now be happy to respond to your questions.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

We will proceed with Mr. Bevilacqua.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Thank you very much.

Minister, welcome to your first committee meeting as minister. I'd like to thank you very much for outlining your plans and priorities for your ministry and department.

I am wondering why ministers consistently present numbers. I'm referring to landed immigrants. Why do you put them together with temporary workers, with students? I think it's misleading. We raised this point earlier, but there's this insistence that you've allowed more people than any previous government. I wonder why that is. Perhaps you can explain.

My colleagues will be dealing with specific issues related to waiting times and other related issues, but here's a broader question. I was struck by your presentation in one significant way. It makes one reference here that “In tough economic times, the demands placed on governments are greater. And our government will meet the needs of Canadians.”

As a minister who is in a cabinet that is facing perhaps one of the most significant economic periods of our history as a country--this recession--I was struck that there was no reference to the great concerns you may have in relation to immigrants themselves, who fare poorly during these times, and who require, may I say, special attention. As you know, it is women, young people, and new Canadians who are affected by the recession more than any other group.

I was quite surprised that your presentation had just one line in reference to this period of economic turmoil. What is your specific plan to help immigrants deal with these tough economic times?

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

To address the first point, one reason I think it's relevant to draw attention to the total intake as I've defined it is that all of those streams are for permanent residency, or else lead to permanent residency. The live-in caregiver program, as you know, leads to permanent residency if the terms of the visa are respected. Now with the Canadian experience class, the same applies to qualified visa holders of student and temporary foreign worker visas. So that total number, last year in the range of half a million, represents either actual future permanent residents or potential permanent residents.

You've raised a very important question...and obviously I did have more than one line about the economy in my remarks. It's the greatest preoccupation for all of us. Let me say, first of all, that most other developed countries have already announced cuts, and significant cuts, in their immigration intake levels for 2009 because of the economic situation. Canada stands alone in having announced its intention to maintain the same planning levels for permanent residents. We are looking mid- to long-term. We believe that when we reach the recovery, we will have to face the labour market reality that we'll need newcomers to help fuel the jobs of the future.

That said, we will closely monitor the labour market developments this year. My deputy minister will be meeting with his provincial colleagues at the end of March to review the economic data and to see if we need to make modifications to reflect the emerging labour market situation.

Finally, let me agree with you, Mr. Bevilacqua, that we need to be concerned about the effects of the recession, not just on long-term Canadians but on newcomers. That's one of the reasons we're investing a whole lot more in settlement programming and in giving some people a head start.

I was just in India visiting the Canadian immigration and integration project, a new program funded through our foreign credential referral office, which is actually giving newcomers a head start on both credential recognition and job placement. I actually met people who had secured job offers from overseas. We'd like to expand that program, and we intend to do so in the year ahead.

There is no doubt that newcomers, like all Canadians, will have a tougher time this year. I suspect that some people will take that into consideration in their decisions on whether or not to actually use the visas we're offering them to come here as skilled foreign workers.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

A very specific question: how many foreign credentials have been accredited as a result of your program?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

As you know, Mr. Bevilacqua, foreign credential recognition is a responsibility of the provinces, which they in turn have delegated to over 400 professional agencies. The Government of Canada does not recognize credentials. What we can do is facilitate the acceleration of credential recognition, which we have done through the creation of the FCRO and its $32 million budget. That's in addition to the large programs already provided by HRSDC in this respect, and now an additional $50 million included in this year's economic action plan, which will be directed toward setting up the national framework that the Prime Minister and premiers agreed to on January 16.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

I gather from your answer that you don't know how many people have actually been accredited foreign credentials as a result of--

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

I'll tell you what, Mr. Bevilacqua. I will undertake to consult with the provincial ministers of labour and human resources to ask them how many people's credentials have been recognized by their over 400 professional agencies since the FCRO was set up.

9:20 a.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

I ask that question only because as minister you will have to return to this committee to illustrate whether the particular program is successful in terms of the money invested. I would gather that the only way you could have a benchmark would be to find out if in fact people are getting their foreign credentials accredited as a result of your program.

So it's an important question. You have a responsibility, in terms of every single dollar you invest as minister, to find out if the program is successful.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Right. Fair point. But I think it would also be fair to acknowledge that there's nothing the federal government can do to force a provincial professional agency to recognize anyone's credentials.

I would also suggest that at the provincial level, the mark of success isn't necessarily whether more people are getting credentials recognized but whether they're getting decisions, and reasonable decisions, in a faster period of time. We can't say to the Ontario professional engineers association that every person who applies ought to be recognized; we can say that those people ought to have a decision rendered faster and in accordance with a transparent process.

I'd like to commend some of the provincial governments, including the Ontario government, for taking this matter much more seriously. Ontario has set up the fairness commission, chaired by our former colleague, Ms. Augustine. I gather she's begun the process of auditing the conduct of those professional agencies in Ontario. The B.C. government has taken important steps as well.

What we're doing is we're working with the provinces, trying to get them, frankly, to bring the professional agencies to the table and to get with the program, to ensure that the door is not arbitrarily closed to newcomers who are seeking credential recognition.

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you.

Mr. St-Cyr.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here today, Minister.

I would like to start with a question that I've previously asked you in the House. It concerns the fact that it is increasingly difficult for Quebec immigration lawyers to speak French before the Immigration and Refugee Board. That state of affairs has been reported to you. Recently, there were two cases in which the board member simply refused to use French as a procedural language. And yet, according to IRB regulations, it is possible to proceed in French provided you make a request five days in advance. The Official Languages Act also provides that it is possible to use French in the courts in Canada.

When I asked you the question in the House, you answered that you were going to consult your officials and give me an answer. I would therefore like to know your answer on this subject.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Thank you for raising this matter, Mr. St-Cyr.

I questioned officials in my department and they informed me of the decision of the IRB member in that specific case. I must emphasize that the board is a quasi-judicial agency independent of government. It would be utterly inappropriate on my part, as minister, to dictate a decision to a board member concerning a case before him.

That said, however, the government obviously expects all agencies and boards to comply with the letter and spirit of the Official Languages Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

9:25 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

All right. Now I'd like to know your opinion on the fact that the Refugee Appeal Division, which is provided for by the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act of 2002, if my memory serves me, was not implemented by the previous Liberal government or by the Conservative government that succeeded it. In the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill to compel the implementation of the Appeal Division. It was passed in the House of Commons. Even in the Senate, there was an agreement between Liberal and Conservative senators on the matter. In the current Parliament, I have once again introduced a bill to that effect, and it contains what was agreed upon in the Senate between the Liberals and Conservatives, as requested by the Immigration minister at the time.

Does that bill suit you? Do you intend to work with parliamentarians to have it passed?

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. St-Cyr, thank you for your question and your concern for the refugee system.

Canada already has one of the best refugee determination systems in the world, even according to the UN High Commissioner. The system provides for a number of recourse mechanisms for rejected refugee claimants. They may file an application for judicial review by the Federal Court of the decision rendered against them. They may also request a pre-removal risk assessment, as well as permanent residence on compassionate grounds. I would add that, at this stage, the implementation of the Refugee Appeal Division to which you refer would, in my view, only complicate the process, which is already a lengthy one. It would increase pressure on the system.

Lastly, I believe that the implementation of an appeal process would be possible only if we simplified the current system to prevent applicants from gaining access to numerous overlapping types of recourse. Ultimately, that means that we already have a number of support levels. As you know, our waiting list is very long. So I don't want to complicate matters further by adding another support level without first simplifying the system.

9:25 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

I'd like to know what appeal options are available to a refugee who is refused by a board member who rejects all applications because, in his view, everyone who appears before him is lying. What opportunity does that person have to file an appeal on the merits, not on the form—and I emphasize that aspect of the question?

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

First, I would say that the government thinks it is important to ensure that the people appointed to the board are qualified and well trained. That is why we have adopted a new appointment system. Under that system, the board, with a panel of nine members, makes a pre-selection and conducts a very vigorous review of the candidates. Since last year, the people appointed to the board have been highly qualified and knowledgeable in the law. However, the Federal Court of Appeal can review the decisions, as you pointed out. In practice, the IRB does it.

9:30 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Minister, the judicial reviews conducted by the Federal Court of Appeal concern the form, the procedure, but it is not possible to appeal on the merits.

On the question of board members' qualifications, I would point out to you that the judges who sit on our courts are also extremely qualified. Our justice system always provides for the possibility of an appeal on the merits. However, the Refugee Board is the only tribunal in the Canadian justice system that does not provide for appeals on the merits. Am I correct in saying it is not possible to appeal on the merits?

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Technically, you're correct, Mr. St-Cyr, but the Federal Court has interpreted its mandate to conduct a judicial review of these cases in practice. So I believe that, in practice, such a review is available.

9:30 a.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

I'll continue—

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Madam Chow, please.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Good morning, Minister.

Since you mentioned the backlog, why don't we go there for a few minutes?

9:30 a.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Sure.

9:30 a.m.

NDP

Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON

Applications were in fact frozen between March and November, so it's not surprising that the backlog has dropped, because there were no applications that could come between March 1 and what you were able to put out, the categories of people who can be admitted. So it's not surprising that it dropped, because the applications were frozen.

Since we're really talking about the supplementary budget, I have an area that I have a great deal of difficulty with. You are asking for $2 million to advertise. I was able to pull out some of former Minister Diane Finley's communication costs. I noticed that $1 million was spent advertising for Bill C-50. Bill C-50, of course, was the bill we were debating in Parliament, and this advertisement money was spent before this committee and Parliament actually had a chance to even approve the bill.

The amount that was spent on accommodation, for example, was $3,000. There were meals, there were transportation costs, refreshments, overtime. Printing was another $5,000. Advertisement to ethnic media was $915,000; to the mainstream media it was $24,000. The media buy was $7,000; the media plan was $48,000. That, to me, is not a good use of taxpayers' money—perhaps it's a good use for Conservative Party funding, because the bill wasn't approved at that time and it was still in Parliament.

So I can't see how we could possibly justify putting more money, $2 million, into a pot when we don't know for sure how it would be spent or not spent.

I searched high and low in the Citizenship and Immigration performance reports. I went to the plans and priorities document for your website. I looked at supplementary estimates. There really is no detailed analysis of how you're going to be spending this $2 million. So I have a great deal of difficulty supporting why we should be supporting these funds. There may be a controversial bill in front of us, and all of sudden there will be even more advertisement that's not necessarily coming from Parliament.

I have two other questions. The other one is that MyCIC is really supposed to do the e-application. I really think one of the reasons why we have a backlog is because we don't have the e-application for family class application, for skilled workers' application. It's only available for students.

In your performance report you said, “Over the next few years, CIC, together with its delivery partners, is moving towards implementing e-services and electronic processing for the full range of immigration and citizenship services.” There's no deadline as to when you're going to get there or how you're going to get there; there's no work plan precisely on how MyCIC will work. The system right now is quite opaque; it's not very transparent. People can't tell where the applications are, and, as a result, there is a lot of backlog, especially in the family class. It takes three to five years to bring in a family, a mother and father, and some even say that people die waiting. So that's an area I want to question.

The third, because I don't have a whole lot of time, is that Citizenship spent $73 million last year and this year you're only looking for $54 million. What are you cutting? It's important to welcome our new citizens, and that's a lot of money you're not putting in.