Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Dec. 6th, 2010

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First of all, bona fide refugees in need of our protection will benefit significantly. Now they have to wait--I think we're up to 23 months or something--for them to get to the refugee protection division for a hearing and a decision. That's two years of uncertainty, two years of stress, two years of being, as we mentioned before, unable to sponsor family members, just waiting in the queue to get their hearing.

Those people who come here with real or metaphorical scars of torture on their backs will now, under the new system, once it's implemented, be getting a positive protection decision and landing in Canada as permanent residents in about three months as opposed to 23 months. So they're the primary beneficiaries.

But I think Canadian taxpayers will be the secondary beneficiaries, because there will be these enormous cost savings by disincentivizing false claimants and frankly just spending less on maintaining false claimants during their presence in Canada.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Mr. Chair, do I have some more time left?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You do.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll pass my time on to Mr. Dykstra.

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

Thank you.

Minister, one issue I want to return to is around the questions that Mr. Uppal asked on the whole aspect of the transfer of legal aid and the opposition that we're seeing to Bill C-49.

I wondered if you could further clarify the cost that taxpayers face each and every time a ship does enter Canadian waters and ends up docked at our ports.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I haven't seen a grossed-up estimate of that, but the costs are enormous. We can't underestimate this.

There is first of all the monitoring cost for the coast guard and the navy as such a vessel approaches. You saw all the CBSA personnel helping to unload the passengers from that last vessel. We're talking about dozens of personnel involved in that. There is of course the cost associated with detention, income support, interim health coverage, and legal aid. There are the investigatory costs, and then there are the costs to our law enforcement and intelligence agencies, as we've had to beef up their presence in the transit countries to try to interrupt these activities.

So I don't think I'd be out of order in talking about these costs as quite easily adding up to likely tens of millions of dollars over the course of, say, the first year of the arrival of such a vessel.

I think that's one of the many reasons Canadians are upset about this. They think it's a violation.

We take for granted the degree to which, in this country, there is a pretty broad public consensus in favour of quite remarkably high levels of immigration. But we cannot take that for granted.

One of the reasons Canadians, particularly new Canadians, are frustrated with this form of illegal migration is because they see it as violating the fundamental principle of fairness. You don't often see Canadians cutting in front of a queue. Canadians have a sense that the immigration system should....

And by the way, I have friends from the opposition here who say there is no such thing as a refugee queue. Not true: there are 12 million UN convention refugees patiently waiting for resettlement opportunities around the world. When the Vietnamese fled Indochina, they went to UNHCR processing centres. They had their claims assessed and they waited patiently, often for several months, for resettlement opportunities.

There are people around the world.... There are regional resettlement opportunities or protection opportunities in Southeast Asia for people who need that.

But these people are ignoring all of that and jumping past, I don't know, two or three dozen countries to come to Canada. This is not the only country. Why would people choose the country that is essentially furthest from them as the only option for protection? I would argue it's because there is a mixed motive here for most, if not a primary motive, which is economic opportunity, family ties, and the ability to use our very generous family reunification process.

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

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Yes, you have about a minute and a half.

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

Oh, great.

Look, we certainly work here in Ottawa...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...in a minority, but it is a democracy...[Technical difficulty--Editor]...at this committee proven that you can move bills forward, move legislation forward--Bill C-11 and Bill C-35, which is up for third reading debate tomorrow--and that we can find compromise and still maintain the integrity of a piece of legislation that is important to Canadians, to the running of our government, and to the fairness within the system you've just spoken of.

One of the options the opposition obviously has...and it is certainly within their realm and within their right to oppose legislation the government moves. But based on their input and their response to that, it's also important that we attempt to move legislation forward.

I'm asking you whether or not you have had any proposals put forward either from parties in this House, in terms of options that would see Bill C-49 move forward, or whether we've seen suggestions and comments from those who are opposed to the legislation, from organizations within this country that have said, look, we don't necessarily agree with the bill, but here are some options you could put forward, and perhaps we could move this bill forward.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

No, I have not seen a lot in that respect. I think Ms. Chow had some proposals.

Essentially what I hear from the opponents of Bill C-49 is what I would regard, personally, as a kind of ideological or political opposition without grappling with the really hard practical question of how do we create a disincentive to people from paying enormous amounts of money to smugglers to come here in the worst and most dangerous way possible?

I don't think there's been a really close study by the opponents of this bill of the phenomena—the practical, real, concrete phenomena—of the specific smuggling syndicates targeting Canada. What's motivating their clients? How are they operating? How are they bringing people through the transit countries? Where are people sourcing from, where are they coming from originally? Is it India, to some extent, for example, a democracy that respects the rights of Tamils, inter alia?

I think there's been an absence of close and hard analysis on this. The general critique I hear, to be fair, is that we should “crack down and focus on the smugglers”. That's what Bill C-49 does with mandatory minimums of up to 10 years for those involved in facilitating smuggling operations. But let's be honest, that's not sufficient. It's necessary, but not sufficient.

As long as there are people willing to pay $50,000, or money in that range, to come to Canada, there will be people in the black market willing to provide the service. We're not talking about some kind of philanthropic service to bring people who are facing immediate risk to Canada. We're talking about former arms runners who, in the absence of a civil war, are now looking for a new commodity, and they've just determined that's people.

We can't reach the arm of Canadian law into foreign jurisdictions where most of these people are operating, so we need to create disincentives to people on the demand side. The bill is balanced, in my view, by addressing both the supply and the demand side.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a couple of brief questions.

We've gone all around this issue with respect to this recent boat that's arrived in British Columbia. Can you give us a general update on where that's at? Mr. Dykstra started to ask some questions, but what's been the cost to date, as far as the ministry of immigration is concerned?

There have been some people released, I understand. Can you give us details on that? And those other people, I don't know, maybe they're not going to be released. It would be interesting to know about that.

Finally, can you give us any information about the operators of the ship and the owners of the ship?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Some of those are operational police questions that I can't comment on, but we'll try to get back to you with an estimate of the up-to-date costs associated with processing those migrants.

Second, I understand that about 200 of the 497 passengers of the Sun Sea have been released on terms, from immigration detention, by the IRB. I think those would include all or most of the women and children who were on board. People of concern whose identities have not yet been established are still under detention, as authorized by the IRB. It's very difficult for the CBSA and their security partners to get information on who such individuals are.

With respect to the crews, this is a question that's often asked, because people I think correctly assume that the crews are involved in the smuggling operations. All I can tell you is what's in the public domain. I believe there was a report last week that the RCMP are coming close to laying charges with respect to the Ocean Lady and/or the Sun Sea and facilitators who may have been on the Canadian side.

It's my understanding—I think I can say this, because it's in the public domain—that there are three or four criminal syndicates involved in this form of smuggling out of Southeast Asia involving specifically Tamil clients. They were typically involved in being parallel organizations to the LTTE--not integrated within its command structure, but involved in the provision of supplies, including armaments, to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam during the civil war. So they're very sophisticated in terms of logistics. They're like a very sophisticated travel agency operating in the shadows.

They provide a full-scale service, whether it's acquiring passports or visas, facilitating people across borders with the exchange of money, or ensuring that local authorities aren't too focused on their presence. The amount of work they have to do in acquiring a large, steel-hulled vessel capable of crossing the Pacific is one of those things, as is getting the supplies together and moving people around.

This is a very large, sophisticated operation, and that's why we have substantially increased the presence of Canadian police and intelligence officials in the transit countries. That has yielded increased cooperation with the local police and intelligence. I'd particularly like to commend our friends in Australia, who've developed expertise in this area. The Royal Thai Police have also been very helpful in the recent past in trying to interrupt these operations.

Hopefully that answers some of your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

On Bill C-49, I read in the papers, Mr. Minister, that you may not have support. Not that I think this committee should act as a mediator, but is there room, from the government's perspective, to save this bill?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

If your question is whether there is willingness on the part of government to consider amendments from the opposition, I've always indicated that's the case. I've also been clear that in order to be acceptable to the government, any amendments would have to be effective in disincentivizing human smuggling.

So if the effect of the amendments is merely to dilute those elements of the bill that would be effective in disincentivizing smuggling, I don't think there's any point. But I do think the committee is the perfect place for us to get into that kind of discussion, and I would hope that over the course of time members will give that consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you've been waiting patiently.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Minister, in my riding of Etobicoke Centre, I have two staff who are fully engaged with citizenship and immigration matters. Approximately three-quarters of those deal with the consular section at the Kiev embassy in Ukraine.

Do you envision that in the near future you'll be putting additional resources into staffing for that consular section?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That would be the immigration section. The consular section in the Kiev embassy deals with Canadian citizens living in Ukraine.

I can say that since 2008 we have had 13 personnel working in the visa section. Three are Canadian public servants, and 10 are locally engaged staff. I think they're providing pretty good service, since 85% of the visitor visas are processed on the day they are received.

Claudette Deschênes, would you like to complement that answer in any respect?

[Claudette Deschênes, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

I think what we're trying to do from a perspective of global case management is to have a national inventory. So from an immigration perspective, we would probably not be thinking of putting in more staff. If there's a need to support that, we would be doing it via resources elsewhere in the system.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I asked the question because going back to 2006, there were in fact cuts that took place. A program officer there, Inna Tsarkova, stated in a newspaper article that

In this year's [personnel] exercise, staff was reduced....

In the immigration section of the Canadian Embassy in Kyiv, this review and adjustment resulted in the elimination of one immigration officer position and two clerical/support positions....

She then went on to say that it was still too early at that point to determine whether staff cuts had resulted in a tangible decrease in visas and their ability to handle cases that came through their section.

I note that on the department's own websites, for the Kiev centre, processing times for skilled workers have gone from 34 months in 2004, with 80% of the cases being finalized, to 83 months. So it's gone from just under three years to basically seven years. Those are that numbers for 2008-09.

Those are the worst numbers on the planet. Is that acceptable?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First of all, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, following the removal of one Canadian-based officer in 2006, there were two Canadian public servants there and nine locally engaged staff. Sine 2008 there have been three Canadian public servants in our Kiev office and 10 locally engaged staff.

There is more staff today, both CBOs and locally engaged staff, than there was in 2006. So there has been a net increase in the number of staff there.

Secondly--

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Just on that point, when we're dealing with the numbers, in 2006 there was a cut of three staff positions--one Canadian and two locally engaged--so those have been reinstated.

But getting back to the actual numbers, do you think it's acceptable that the processing times for 80% of cases to be finalized have gone from 34 months to what they were for 2008-09, which was seven years, the worst numbers on the planet?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First of all, if you actually go back to 15 years ago, there was virtually no inventory. Statistics always depend on your baseline year. If you go back 15 years, there would have been virtually no processing waiting times for foreign skilled workers out of Ukraine or pretty much anywhere else. Over the course of 15 years, these very large inventories developed, not just in Ukraine but around the world. Fortunately, as a result of the action plan for faster immigration, new applicants under the FSW program in Ukraine will be having their applications considered and typically approved in about 10 months. So you're talking about the very old inventory.

Ms. Deschênes, do you have a comment on the old FSW inventory in Ukraine?

[Claudette Deschênes]

I would make a comment that in Ukraine there are a fair number of provincial nominees who are now being accepted, and we are dealing with them on a priority basis. So some of the resources that would have been used for federal skilled workers have moved over to make sure the provincial nominee numbers are staying consistent.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I've also noted on the department's website that permanent residents from Ukraine, by year, during that time of initial cuts, fell by about 45%.

I'd like to deal with this issue of a pattern of disinformation that sometimes comes with the communications coming out of the minister's office. We heard about the Peel Tamil centre.

I'm glad the minister acknowledged that there were cuts in 2006, because when I first raised it, an e-mail, which I have in my hands, went out from the minister's office stating that Wrzesnewskyj misleads Ukrainian-Canadians about this issue, and saying that since mid-2006 there had been no reductions in staffing in the visa section of the Canadian embassy.

Today you have admitted that this had occurred during 2006. My original question to you, Minister, in the House of Commons and to your parliamentary secretary, was about cuts in 2006. And in this disinformation--there's a pattern to this disinformation--it said it was since mid-2006.

Do you condone this pattern of disinformation coming out of your office?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I don't condone loaded, torqued, and inaccurate questions. The statement you just read is absolutely accurate: since mid-2006, there have been no cuts, there have only been additions in personnel.

I would also point out the inaccuracy of your contention that the number of permanent residents being landed from Ukraine has gone down. In 2006, there were 1,153 permanent residents approved by our program. In 2008, there were 1,527. That would be an increase of some 400.