Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is meeting number 36. It's Tuesday, November 26, 2009. The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of chapter 2, “Selecting Foreign Workers Under the Immigration Program” of the fall 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.

We indeed have as our guests today the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, who is no stranger to these rooms, and her colleagues. Welcome, Madam.

We also have Richard Flageole--that is the correct pronunciation, I hope--who is the Assistant Auditor General, and Suzanne Therrien, principal. I'm not too sure what that means, but maybe you'll tell us.

So welcome. As you know, our witnesses have an opportunity to make an opening statement, followed by questions from our colleagues. I thank you for coming to go over your report with us. Thank you very much.

[Sheila Fraser, Auditor General of Canada, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our chapter on selecting foreign workers under the immigration program. As you mentioned, I am joined today by Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, and Suzanne Therrien, principal, who were responsible for the audit.

Canada has an ongoing need for permanent and temporary workers with various skills, and it must compete with other countries to attract them. It is critical that the government programs to facilitate the entry of these workers be designed and delivered in a way to ensure that the needs of the Canadian labour market are met.

We found that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had made a number of key decisions without first properly assessing the costs and benefits, risks, and potential impact on other programs and delivery mechanisms. Some of these decisions have caused a significant shift in the types of workers being admitted to Canada. We saw little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy to best meet the needs of the Canadian labour market.

In addition, we noted that evaluations of the programs we audited were either not updated or lacking. In our view, until CIC develops a clear vision of what each program is expected to contribute and evaluates the performance of its current programs, the department will not be able to demonstrate that its programming best meets the needs of the Canadian labour market.

The inventory of applications in the federal skilled worker category has almost doubled since our audit in 2000. In December 2008, more than 620,000 people had been waiting on average 63 months for a decision to be made on whether they had been granted permanent residency or not. Measures taken by CIC in 2008 to manage the inventory by limiting the number of new applications--for example, processing only those that meet new, more narrowly defined criteria--were not based on sufficient analysis of their potential effects.

While it is too early to assess the full impact of these measures, trends in the number of new applications received since the beginning of 2009 indicate the measures might not have the desired effect. For example, by the end of June 2009, the department had not experienced a significant reduction in the number of new applications. Citizenship and Immigration Canada will have to monitor the situation closely and might need to consider other strategies to manage the inventory. Failure to do so could result in the creation of another inventory of new applications that would prevent CIC from processing these within the six to 12 months it has forecast.

In addition, the department's ability to reduce the inventory of old applications prior to the introduction of ministerial instructions could be significantly impaired. At the time of our audit, Citizenship and Immigration Canada was unable to determine when this backlog would likely be eliminated or to define what would be a reasonable timeframe to do so. Their latest estimate in 2008 indicated that the backlog might not be eliminated for another eight to 25 years.

However, by the end of June 2009, this particular backlog had been reduced to about 452,000 people or by 29%. This reduction was possible because Citizenship and Immigration Canada processed mainly old applications. The department started processing the new applications for eligibility only in November 2008 when the ministerial instructions were finally published.

In June 2009, the overall inventory, which includes both old and new applications, still numbered approximately 594,000. This represents a decrease of only 6.5% in the overall inventory since the introduction of the ministerial instructions.

Our chapter also identified serious problems in the design and delivery of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program that is co-managed by CIC and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations state that before issuing a work permit to a temporary foreign worker, a CIC officer must assess, on the basis of an opinion provided by HRSDC, if the job offer is genuine and not likely to negatively affect the labour market in Canada. The regulations state the factors to consider in assessing labour market effects but are silent on how to assess whether a job offer is genuine. We found that CIC and HRSDC had not clearly defined their respective roles and responsibilities in making this assessment and how it is to be carried out. The genuineness of job offers was therefore rarely verified. As a result, work permits could be issued for jobs or employers in Canada that do not exist.

Furthermore, we found that there is no systematic follow-up by either CIC or HRSDC to verify that employers in Canada are complying with the terms and conditions, such as wages and accommodations, under which work permits are issued. This creates risks to program integrity and could leave many foreign workers, such as live-in caregivers and lower-skilled temporary foreign workers, in a vulnerable position.

Also, weaknesses in the practices for issuing labour market opinions raised questions about the quality and consistency of decisions being made by HRSDC officers. After our audit, regulatory modifications aimed at resolving some of these issues have been published in the Canada Gazette.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has successfully introduced a number of initiatives and tools to address some of the inefficiencies that we reported in our 2000 audit. However, despite our recommendation to do so, the department has not yet implemented a quality assurance framework to obtain assurance that decisions made by its visa officers are fair and consistent.

Finally, we note that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada have implemented programs to facilitate the recognition of foreign credentials. At the end of our audit, the federal government was working with provinces and territories to develop a pan-Canadian framework for foreign qualification assessment and recognition.

Mr. Chair, we have raised a number of important issues in our chapter. We encourage the committee to request an action plan from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and to follow up on what progress the departments have made in addressing our recommendation.

This concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Fraser, and I'm sure there will be some questions.

The first round is seven minutes.

Mr. Bevilacqua.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Auditor General, I would like to first of all thank you very much for all the work you do on behalf of the people of Canada, work that I know myself and actually members of the Liberal caucus take very seriously.

I'm going to take this opportunity, very briefly, in two or three minutes, to outline some of the concerns you have raised, and I would like to hear from you a description of how you would describe essentially the state of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as it relates to the issues that you have raised. If I were a real partisan guy, you've given me an embarrassment of riches, but I'm motivated by a higher calling, which is to provide Canadians the best possible alternative.

When we look at your report, the audit expected CIC to “have a clear vision of how many immigrants should be selected under each category over a multi-year planning horizon”. Despite the commitments made in 2004, a national immigration framework, such as a “strategic roadmap” was still absent. That's one issue.

Then on the issue of strategic planning and programming--and this is from the Library of Parliament's briefing note--“The audit found that evaluations of the programs covered were dated and had not been implemented in a timely fashion that would assist in program development.”

On the issue of federal skilled workers, “the audit examines the backlog of applications, which had reached more than 620,000 people by 31 December 2000, as well as measures taken to address the backlog”. You found problems there as well. Then “The audit makes a number of observations and three recommendations related to the ministerial instructions. First, insufficient analysis was undertaken in the development of ministerial instructions”--and this of course refers to Bill C-50. And then “Second, the early evidence indicates that the instructions may not be meeting the goal of reducing the number of new applications”, and “Third...the audit found that the process and mechanisms for on-going monitoring and revision of the instructions are lacking.” Then, “Finally, the audit examines the centralized intake office for federal skilled worker.... It finds that the centralized intake office was implemented without sufficient analysis and has encountered some serious difficulties....”

On the provincial nominee program, the briefing note says that “little evaluation has taken place to assess whether the provincial nominee programs are meeting the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. As I said, there are many, many other issues related to temporary foreign workers.

You raised concerns with “the quality and consistency of decisions on labour market opinions” and “ found that directives were unclear or incomplete and that interpretations varied from one region to another and within offices”. The briefing note further states that “With regard to assessment of the genuineness of a job offer for a temporary foreign worker, the audit found that HRSDC and CIC 'have not clearly defined their respective roles and responsibilities', and that measures were not in place to systematically verify job offers.”

I'm simply listing these things for Canadians, who I am sure are viewing this program, because I know they care about Parliament and the work we do. I'm just listing all these things to get a sense of the magnitude of the challenges that this government and we collectively as a Parliament face in addressing these issues. In all the reports that you have written, and you have written many, where do you put this in the sense of a crisis situation? You've written a lot of reports. How serious are these issues?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

I would say the issues are serious, because obviously Canada needs to have immigration to meet the requirements and the needs of the labour market. I think all studies show that with our demographics, the only growth that will come in the country is through immigration. With an aging population, we need these talented, skilled people to be coming into the country to fill those labour market needs.

I think there are probably two main issues that I would flag for the committee. One is the whole question of the strategy and the framework going forward. In the report we mentioned in one of the exhibits--exhibit 2.5, which is on page 12 of the English version--significant shifts in the categories, and we saw no analysis that would indicate that this is what is desired. Unless things are changed--and I believe there may have been some changes with the latest numbers that were produced by the department--the federal skilled worker program will go down to 18,000 people.

There's been a significant shift to the federal nominee program, which may be appropriate, but we saw no analysis indicating that this was where the federal government thought the immigration decision should go. There's very little oversight, very little understanding of what kinds of immigrants are coming in under the provincial nominee program. I think it raises the role about what is the federal government's responsibility vis-à-vis these programs. I think that's one issue.

The other issue I think is how to manage the applications. To me, that is a big issue. Even though the number of job categories has been reduced from over 300 to 38, there are still tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of applications coming in every year. Early indications are that this reduction is not having the effect that was desired, and the department is going to have difficulty meeting their target of six to 12 months. So it's a question of how to manage this in a more effective way. Is it reasonable to expect people to wait five years to get a response?

Of course, then there's the monitoring that goes on afterwards and making sure that the jobs are valid. But to me, those are the main challenges this department faces.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You've got a minute left.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Yes, and I will wrap it up by once again expressing my gratitude for the report.

I also want to tell you--because I know you're a person who doesn't use words lightly--that whenever you mention that you're concerned about the integrity of the program and the protection of foreign workers, I take that to heart. It means a lot to us. This is the reason why this committee has been working hard on this particular issue, because if the integrity of our system is not upheld, then we're going to have some serious, serious issues to deal with in the future. That's something we certainly want to avoid.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

Monsieur St-Cyr is next.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you to you, Madam Fraser, and your team for appearing here today.

Before dealing with your most recent report, I would like to get back to a previous report that included a section on immigration where you stated, if I recall, that 41,000 individuals were facing a notice of deportation, or of inadmissibility, and that the agency had essentially lost sight of them.

You also said that it was difficult for the agency to expend energy finding them because there was simply no way of knowing whether or not they had left the country. At the time you stated that that was due, in part, to the fact that there were no exit controls in Canada. If I recall correctly, you have made no recommendation to that effect.

Can you tell me whether any news to this effect has been brought to your attention by the government? Do you think it would be advisable for the committee to consider the option of establishing exit controls in Canada? Would that be an advisable option? Should we carry out a cost-benefit analysis? There are inherent costs in creating exit controls, but there are also advantages to be had.

Recently there have been television reports of citizenship fraud: people sometimes leave the country for years while pretending that they are still here. Do you believe the committee should put some effort into this issue?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The report the member is referring to was issued in 2006 or 2007, I believe. Further to that, we have not carried out a follow-up, but I did point out that we have seen improved procedures, compared to what we had noted in the previous audit, where the department is carrying out more of their risk analysis, and individuals who pose a risk to society are more closely monitored. The department was being more active in tracking them down. So, we found that the situation had improved. However, I have obtained no result or information since. It would be something to ask of the government.

With respect to monitoring, that is really a political question. And, as you know, the Auditor General is prudent not to comment on political matters.

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

Very well. I understand. That is why I asked you whether we should study this matter, whether it had any potential. But I understand that you would prefer not to speak to that issue. It is understandable.

Let us get back to the report we have here. You referred to the issue of backlogs and ensuing delays. Have you assessed the impact that that could have on the quality of applicants, I don't much like the term, or on the individuals that may choose to come to Canada rather than go elsewhere in the world? Could these delays be having an impact on our selection and, therefore, at the end of the day, on the quality of individuals chosen?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have not done any specific work in this respect, but I believe we all understand that those we would like to see come to Canada are also courted by other countries; we are in a sort of competition to get the best. When there is a five-year backlog, if other countries are more efficient and can provide individuals a spot more quickly, Canada is at risk of losing them.

I believe there is a type of fast-tracking system for some positions. Also, the increase in the number of provincial programs is another avenue for people trying to enter more quickly. However, it is certainly a challenge to appropriately target the individuals we want to welcome to Canada and process applications as quickly as possible.

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

Right. I share your assessment.

I am concerned, among other things, with the issue of immigrant investors, who are, by nature, very mobile individuals able to settle anywhere in the world. When there are significant wait times, in my opinion, there is a kind of filtering process that occurs so that ultimately the most mobile individuals, those who are the most likely to go anywhere in the world could select another place where they will get a faster response.

I don't know whether you will be able to answer my next question, but perhaps you could give us some guidance. I often get the feeling, as an MP, that the wait time issue is almost used as a way to manage immigration. Let me explain myself. In general, within a system, for example, the health care system, there is a waiting period simply because there are not enough resources or enough money. So, people have to line up. The current perception with regard to immigration is that it is a control issue. Annual quotas are established, and the only way to reach those quotas, since a number of people want to come and live in Canada, is to put on the brakes and to maintain the waiting period.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're almost out of time, Mr. St-Cyr.

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

Right.

Have you addressed this issue?

[Sheila Fraser]

Clearly, the annual threshold is a political decision once again. I believe that it is based on Canada's capacity to bring these people in and to ensure their success in this country. So, clearly, an annual threshold has been set. It is even tabled in Parliament.

It is also true that Canada is a very popular country. Many people want to come here. The question is to properly target the market needs to the qualified workers' program, specifically. We need to determine what the market needs are and see whether we are targeting them properly, since we also need to determine the right strategy to handle applications within a reasonable timeframe and establish a reasonable timeframe.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Chow.

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

Ms. Fraser, thank you for coming.

Your report basically said there is no plan, no system, no strategic planning, no vision, no quality assurance framework, no measures to improve the integrity of the temporary foreign workers program, and no monitoring. It's pretty damning.

What we have here is a huge temporary foreign workers program, involving over 200,000 workers, and yet you see the number of skilled workers is soon going to fall from 96,000 to 46,000. I've added the federal and the Quebec skilled workers. So unless you have seen some philosophical policy underpinning this, it seems to me to be driven completely by “whatever the employer wants, the employer gets”. Without an overall strategic plan, what kind of danger do you think we might see, say 10 years down the road, or even this year? What will happen to this huge number--200,000--of temporary foreign workers in Canada if the integrity of the program is not well protected? These workers can easily go underground if they can't find jobs anymore because there's no strategic plan, because they may not want to leave. That means we could have a large number of undocumented workers in Canada, and some of them might apply for refugee status. Then there would be a complete mess. You had a report on CBSA two years ago about that problem; this is going to be a lot worse.

So where do you think this is heading, and why is it that way?

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I'm not sure of the why, but I would note a couple of the risks. If there isn't the strategic planning and the kind of vision going forward, I think, first of all, there can be a risk for Canadian business if they do not have the skilled workers they require.

We met--and Mr. Flageole can perhaps elaborate if you wish--several employers who really do depend on foreign skilled workers coming into the country, and if the people coming in don't meet that demand, Canadian industry could suffer. I think that's one consequence.

The other is that it would appear there's going to be quite a significant shift in the categories under which people are coming in. There will be many more coming in under provincial nominee programs, which might be appropriate and they might better know labour market needs. However, you would expect the federal government to at least know that and know what type of people are coming into the country, what the labour market needs are in those areas, and whether these programs are effective at doing that.

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

Is anyone tracking that?

[Sheila Fraser]

There is minimal tracking, and they're simply informed by the provinces about what's happening, but I wouldn't say there's any strategic analysis direction being given.

The other thing we see, of course, is quite a significant increase in live-in caregivers in the Canadian experience class. Now, the Canadian experience class may also include students who are here, but a lot of them will be temporary workers who have been here for two or three years. These are not necessarily the highest-skilled people, and the question is how the economy can continue to absorb these people and make sure they're successful. So there's quite a shift that's going on or that would appear to be occurring between skilled workers and perhaps less skilled workers. We ask whether that is what Canada needs, and whether the department has done the analysis to say that this is what is appropriate in order to ensure that going forward these people continue to be successful and that the Canadian industry has the people it needs to do the jobs.

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

Recently, the minister established some new regulations. They're still in the consultation period until the first week of December. They state that there's a limited duration for temporary foreign workers. They can work here for only four years, followed by a period of at least six years in which they will not be authorized to work in Canada. Then they will be able to come again.

Now, I can see this applying for the employer, that you can have only four years, because after four years it's obviously not a temporary job. You need these workers on a permanent basis. Then you cannot go and apply for more people. But this applied to the workers. I don't know whether you could project or not. That really would make the situation even worse, because then there would be people here who would have to leave, and they might not....

[Sheila Fraser]

It would be best if the department responded. One risk that they may have been trying to address is that, because the processing time under the federal skilled worker program was so long, people were coming in under the temporary program and staying. If these people really have the skills we need in this country, they should be encouraged to apply under the permanent program, the federal skilled worker program.

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

Rather than the temporary program.

[Sheila Fraser]

That's right.