Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Thanks, Mr. Minister. I mean, they're your figures.

Again, I am not comparing to the previous government; I am comparing your record—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Why not? That's the bottom line.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

May I please finish up and ask a question? On one thing you were asked about, you used a very cute little analogy with an airplane. One thing that air carriers sometimes do when there is more demand by the people who want to buy tickets is that they put on a bigger plane. Have you considered doing that?

I'll give you a couple of facts and ask for your comment.

We know your own department says that in five years we're going to need immigration to fill 100% of our new labour growth. You have commented on the aging population and declining birth rates. We can replace our jobs now with natural growth, but within five years we need immigration for our economy to grow. Have you considered increasing the levels, say closer to 1%—300,000 to 340,000?

I also note that when you consulted with people in the summer you noted something in a letter to the potential witnesses. You said: “Although increasing levels would be one way to mitigate some of these pressures, it would require broad buy-in from the public, and additional funding.”

What was that buy-in from the public from your consultations this summer, Mr. Minister? Would you share the results of those consultations with the public, with this committee, and tell us if you're prepared, as a government, to put in additional funding?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Sure. There are three questions there: funding, consultations, and levels.

In terms of levels, thank you very much for your letter. I do appreciate being specific and your giving us input on this.

In Mr. Davies' letter of October 14, essentially what he suggested is up to 1% of the population, which would be 336,000 admissions.

Your first question was whether we had considered putting on a bigger plane. Yes, we have already done so. We've increased average immigration levels by 14%, as opposed to the levels under the previous government. The previous government admitted, on average, 220,500 people. This government has admitted 254,000, on average. That is an increase of 14%.

Second, going to what you're suggesting, that 336,000 would have a negligible effect on backlogs and processing times, that is really the problem that I don't think you're grappling with. You can have a thoughtful discussion about the optimum rate of levels for the Canadian economy or what have you, but in terms of backlog reduction, which I believe is the focus of the study, if you don't significantly limit new applications, moving admissions up to 336,000, as you've suggested, won't do the job.

I think you're being a bit incomplete in the way you're presenting your views. Because in the same letter, Mr. Davies says that preferably he urges the government to provide an option to all temporary foreign workers to apply for permanent residency. That would be an additional 140,000 people in the queue.

What you're really saying is 336,000 plus 140,000, which would be 476,000 people. Mr. Davies, if that's what you're advocating—doubling immigration—that's fine, but I hope you are transparent about that with your constituents in British Columbia, 80% of whom are saying immigration levels are high enough or too high.

In terms of consultations--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have a problem, Mr. Minister—

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

The consultations we did online reflect those public opinion polls. And in terms of funding, as I've pointed out, speeding up the processing won't solve the backlog problem as long as applications exceed admissions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're going to have to move on. We're a minute over already.

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

I find that's the biggest problem. The minister, on the one hand, says he wants to have this wholesome discussion and I'm all for that. I've a lot of ideas in terms of how we can improve the system, and I want to be able to participate in improving the system. I think we need to have dialogue.

The study for a number of weeks on the backlog.... Personally, I'd put that on the back burner and have the Minister of Immigration here where we can have a roundtable discussion, questions and answers, and be a part of a process that would actually look at coming up with answers so the public would be better served.

I spent more time asking questions of the minister of immigration at the provincial level when I was an MLA, because time allowed for MLAs to actually question, thoroughly question, and get answers from a minister. Here, I'm given five minutes to be able to question what affects the lives of millions of Canadians. That's simply not good enough, dealing with the backlogs.

Having said that, let's take a look. One of the more sensitive issues is in regard to the parents. What we've seen is that the lower end of the target has now been reduced for parents, yet the greatest problem on which we're getting the most phone calls is in dealing with those backlogs of parents. Yet the targets have been reduced. In fact, if you look at last year, we were at the low end in terms of accepting the number of parents coming into Canada.

So I have some difficulties in terms of how the government has prioritized. I have some ideas that I would love to share with the minister, and I will share them with him, but I only have five minutes here. If you want to give me leave, I'll be more than happy to do that.

Mr. Chair, I want to talk about the specific issue of backlogs, and ask a question, a very specific question.

Imagine your son is wanting to sponsor you. You're living in the Philippines. You're 50 years old. You have two children. One's in university, the other one's in high school.

Now you're getting into the system. You can today expect it to take seven years in order to be processed, if you're coming from the Philippines. You are obligated to keep your university student in public education until the time you are issued a visa. That means, at the end of the day, we're saying to that student that they don't have a choice; they can't go into the workforce. If they do, they lose their dependency.

These are the types of nuances that need to be changed. And this deals strictly with backlogs. We have people who are put into positions in which, in some cases, they're having to possibly misrepresent themselves because of bad government policy.

My preference, when we have meetings like this, is that these are the things we should be talking about. We shouldn't be constrained to a few minutes of questions and answers.

Here is a very specific question that I would ask: will the minister commit to allowing dependants who have achieved the minimum of a three-year post-secondary course or program to remain as a dependant of a principal applicant if the principal applicant has been in the system for a minimum of 12 months? That would then allow.... For example, if I'm a parent and I'm being sponsored by my son in Canada, my child, who now has a three-year degree--but I still have another five years before I'm processed--could actually go out and work and support himself and not have to be worried about being dropped as a dependant.

That's only one example of the types of discussions I believe we should have.

The minister is right, Mr. Chairperson. It's not a question of resources. We have the resources in the embassies across the world. Our issue is that we have to deal with the numbers and how we are processing the applications.

I don't question that. I do question to what degree we are being afforded the opportunity to have that wholesome debate. That's what the minister says he wants, a wholesome debate. I think you have a wholesome debate when you enable opposition critics, who have a responsibility that is broader than their own constituency, to ensure that there's accountability on the issue of immigration and citizenship. You have to provide them the opportunity to be able to ask all of the questions, not limit it to five minutes.

The question I would like answered by the minister—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're out of time, sir.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

--is does he agree that we need to open up the system so that there can be questions and better dialogue?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Lamoureux, thank you very much.

Madame Groguhé.

My problem, Mr. Minister, is I'm bound by rules to follow. You may want to respond to him, but I'm bound by these rules. Unless the committee authorizes me to change those rules, that's the way the cookie crumbles.

On a point of order, Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Chair, could we solicit the members of the committee and ask for leave so that the minister can respond in as wholesome a manner as he would like to my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's not a point of order.

Ms. Groguhé.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Mr. Minister, my question deals with the solutions under consideration. You mentioned the possibility of limiting the number of new applications. I would like to know which classes would be the priority if that solution were adopted.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Which solution?

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Limiting the number of new applications.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First, we have set a limit on new applications under the skilled workers program. We have done the same for new applications under the investors program. We are also doing it for the private sponsorship of refugees program.

Those are the priorities in our ministerial directives for limiting the number of new applications. The only other program with a significant backlog where we have not done so is the program that allows people to sponsor parents and grandparents.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Could you provide a little more detailed information about the obstacles that you see to the option of getting rid of the backlog by increasing the number of immigrants?

I would also like to know if you could possibly tell us your options. That would help us to better understand the various options you have considered. What are the pros and cons?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

As I have already mentioned, the government has increased overall immigration levels by 14% over the previous government. We have even increased the numbers in the family reunification class. As I said, on average, we have raised it from 40,000 under the previous government to 47,000 under the current government.

As I said in my presentation, increasing admissions under the sponsorship of parents program will not solve the backlog problem. Even if we doubled the number of parents and grandparents arriving in Canada between now and 2018, we would still have a backlog of around 70,000. So increasing the number of admissions would not be enough to clear the backlog.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

If we are not talking about increasing numbers in order to affect the backlog, is there anything in your plan that decreases admissions in certain classes? If so, which ones?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I guess the answer to that question is that I am looking for solutions.

During the election campaign, I made the commitment to consult Canadians so that we can come up with an action plan to reduce the backlog in the reunification program for parents and grandparents. We are now involved in those consultations and I feel that this committee's current study is part of that process.

I would like to find the best solutions. If doubling the number of parents and grandparents arriving in Canada is not a solution, is the department going to have to issue directives limiting the number of new applications that we receive? I think that it is a solution that we have to consider.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Do I still have a bit of time?

Mr. Minister, since you have a vision and you have made projections, could you tell me which specific class you are thinking of in terms of impacts and solutions?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First, as I said, there is the skilled workers program. For the first time, in June 2009, I issued a ministerial directive designed to limit the number of new applications. Before that, the number was 20,000. Since last June, we have kept the number at 10,000. So we will be getting only 10,000 new applications under the skilled workers program. As a result of that limit on new applications, we are seeing a major decrease in that class.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to move on.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

This summer, we imposed a moratorium on new applications under the investors program and we are doing the same thing under the private sponsorship of refugees program.