Evidence of meeting #4 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was backlog.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Costas Menegakis Conservative Richmond Hill, ON
Wonderful.
I have another question. I'd like to get your feedback on what you think the consequences would be to our economy—what they are to our economy, and our ability to be able to fill labour market shortages, etc.—of the fact that we have such a large backlog and such a large wait time.
12:55 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
This is what I'm missing in some of the testimonies and some of the questions. Our system has changed. More than 50% of skilled workers are provincially selected. The federal level has off-loaded the heavy lifting to the province. The most expensive skilled-worker files are provincial decisions now—soft trade, soft skills. That's the right question, because at the end of the day, the regional economic needs will be met by regional selection systems provincially. We cream off the easiest files to process federally, which is why we have that circumscribed list. We're getting off light.
The answer to the question is the province, and the elephant in the room, frankly, is the province of Ontario, which has fundamentally abdicated its constitutional responsibility to answer the immigration selection system in a serious way. That's the root cause and genesis of the federal backlog and hopefully of change for the future.
No longer should the federal level take the political hit for a provincial decision to abdicate its responsibility.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
I have just one quick point on that. Of the 280,000 immigrants who we took in last year, only about 49,000 were principal applicants or skilled workers selected by the federal government. That's a very small number, about 17%. My figure here shows that the provinces brought in roughly 36,000.
But I raise one caution on the provincial sponsorship. It's successful in Manitoba and Saskatchewan. Everybody is happy with it there and I'm sure in British Columbia as well. But part of the problem is that many of these people are unskilled workers, and they're being paid wages that are less than Canadians would be paid. If you can easily get foreign labour at a cheaper cost than you can Canadian, you're going to take the foreign labour.
In addition to that, there's no control over these people. From the day they arrive in Quebec, they can leave for Toronto the following day. There's no follow-up or chasing.
12:55 p.m.
As an Individual
So if you have freedom of movement and one province brings in a lot of workers, those workers don't have to stay there. They can move anywhere they want. There's no follow-up, no tracing, no control. That's part of the problem I see with the provincial nomination program.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I thought I would take the unique opportunity to express the official opposition's position on levels after my friends the Conservatives and the minister have mis-characterized what our position is, because I think it's important.
For the last ten years, we've received an average of 400,000 applications a year. The government sets the level of how many of those it is going to admit. The previous government to the Conservatives accepted about 220,000 and brought in, I understand, a law that obligated the CIC officials to process every application to final decision. The current government raised those levels. They raised them 14% to take in an average of 250,000 a year.
Last year, of course, the government accepted 280,000 admissions, which is 0.8% of population. I guess the government considered it prudent to accept 0.8% of population last year. So the official opposition's position is that we should be looking at approaching 1% of population as one tool in the toolbox to maybe get a better balance between the applications and the number of admissions, so that we don't have this perpetual, increasing backlog.
It's the New Democratic Party's position that there are a number of tools in the toolbox that we can look at. I think Mr. Kurland quite aptly said that maybe we can be looking at caps in some categories, but I'm wondering if both of you can have some comment on whether you agree with the minister, who seems to think that the only tool in the toolbox for dealing with backlog is to cap applications. I'd like to talk about other policy options, like a prudent increase to levels as well as maybe creative ideas like perhaps implementing a ten-year multiple entry visa for parents, to take people out of the queue for citizenship, which I'm going to ask Mr. Kurland about in a moment. I'll talk about that in a second.
Do any of you have some comments on that position?
1 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
Indeed, and that's absolutely correct that more than a cap is required to cure our backlog situation. It's cap and growth of the total number. It's also creativity, which is why I and the witnesses are here to provide prospective solutions. Here's an example. Let's cure, in part, the parents backlog with the investors backlog. Here's a $200-million-a-year solution. That's not $200 million to spend, but to receive in cash.
For example, if federally we're processing 1,700 investors from the backlog a year, we can create, within that 1,700 people who are obliged to remit $400,000 cash—wire transfers to the Government of Canada—500 priority processing places for volunteers who will upgrade their payments from the old $400K level to the new 2011 $800K level. They, instead of waiting nine years, will be here and have their file processed in one year, if for personal business reasons they want priority processing. That would raise $200 million. With each investor case, we can afford—cost-free, without the $75K solution—three parents per investor.
So it's that type of revenue-neutral jiggering of the inventory, operationally, that can cure some of the backlog--that and, as you say, look at our levels.
1 p.m.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
I want to give Mr. Bissett a chance to answer too, but why don't I get that second part and then I'll let you both answer.
One of my questions is what percentage of the parents and grandparents who are currently in the queue—and I think the number is approximately 150,000—do you think would take out their application for citizenship if they knew they could simply get a ten-year multiple entry visa and take care of their own health insurance. Many of them, I assume, simply want to come and visit their families. They don't necessarily want to become a citizen. That might relieve some of the pressure. What percentage do you think that would be?
1 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
That's probably the most astute observation that I have received in quite a long time. I hope that would be seriously considered as a resolution.
1 p.m.
NDP
1 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
I shouldn't go down that line, but that's precisely the line of thinking that we have to consider, precisely that. From my experience anecdotally and in consultation with colleagues across the country, you would see 20% of the inventory, one in five, go by the road and deflate the numbers, but you'd have to control the artificiality of the annual report of that inventory, knowing that some of these individuals are in Canada. So that's the solution, practically speaking. Just add on to it the medical expense risk. Address that somehow.
1 p.m.
As an Individual
I don't disagree with that, but I'd like to address the first part of the question, on levels.
I'm not in favour of setting a specific level. I think we should go back to how we used to run the program. Supposedly we're bringing in large numbers of immigrants to enhance our labour force. The whole idea of bringing immigrants here was to do that, primarily. Family reunification came along with it, and we have a responsibility on the humanitarian refugee side.
At one time about 60% of the movement was for labour force reasons. We didn't set a cap on it; we didn't set a level. We turned the tap on and off. If Canada needed labour and we had occupations that were in short supply, we went out and got those people and processed them very quickly. They got here, got jobs, and did well. The record of the immigrants who came before 1990 shows that.
Now, as I mentioned, we've set a level and the pressure is on visa officers to get the numbers and they haven't got the staff or the ability to do that. So they're shortcutting the system and not interviewing anybody. Can you imagine a Canadian employer hiring anyone they don't interview? Yet we're bringing people to Canada as future citizens when we don't even bother to look at them. That's wrong, and it's part of the reason, as I said earlier, that they're not doing that well.
I wouldn't set a level. I would ask what does the labour force need. If we can enhance that by immigration, do it, and do it quickly, as the Australians do.
One of the problems, if you're starting to bring in large numbers of immigrants to fill your labour force requirements, is it's a confession that there's something wrong with the country's labour force policy. Canada is desperately short of trade colleges and apprenticeship programs. James Knight, the head of the community colleges across Canada, says that 47% of those coming out of high school who want to be plumbers, electricians, or carpenters are not able to get training. Part of the reason for that is we're not investing in that kind of infrastructure because we're getting relatively cheap labour through the immigration stream.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to get a couple of general observations and questions on the record.
In regard to immigration levels, the issue with immigration levels is not as much what is the hard number, it's the actual mixture. For example, if you're going to have 100,000 immigrants come in this year and 100,000 of them are going to be grandparents, it's not going to work. The answer, when you talk about what should be Canada's number of immigrants per year, has a lot more to do with what kind of mixture of immigrants we're having come into the country. I would like affirmation on that particular point.
In regard to the backlogs, we've heard that the backlog problem is not an issue of staffing resources. We have enough people around the world, in our embassies, who are able and quite capable of being able to deal with providing Canada with the number of immigrants we need in a year.
Could I have very brief comments on those two points?
1:05 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
Absolutely.
In the context of solutions for backlog resolution in the parents category, point well taken, because there is provincial selection capability. In addition to my proposed solution of the two backlog priority processing streams paying cash, go to the province, the processing partner, and say, “Some people can't afford $75,000. You're the ones paying medicare. How many tickets are you willing to pony up and allow to come forward cost-free?” Will the Government of Ontario allow a thousand parents to enter cost-free under that program?
So the mix is right. We have it at 60-40, and that's the way to go. There should be no question that spousal reunification is our priority--and not for reasons of love; demographically we need young people, young families, to build a stronger Canada.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
I'm just going to get my last question in, because I only have five minutes.
Mr. Bissett, you can start off. One of the things I suggest we look at doing is to break down the family support stream, to break down grandparents and parents into at least two, based on age. Many parents are quite young, in their late forties or early fifties. You also have many who for compassionate reasons...for example, a single parent abroad whose spouse has died and who would love to be with their child. Do you see value in that?
1:05 p.m.
As an Individual
Yes, I certainly do. I do see value in that.
I take exception, I think, to the idea that we have enough staff to handle 250,000 immigrants a year, because they do other things as well. I don't think they do have....
That's not a problem with the sponsored parents and grandparents, as such, because most of them are at an age where we're not too concerned about security or criminality. But some of the younger ones are a problem, and they should be interviewed. Even in the older days, we didn't always interview all the parents, but if there's a 45-year-old parent with four or five children coming, I think it's worthwhile interviewing to make sure that they are indeed who they claim to be and so on and so forth.
I agree, the mix is extremely important. But I go back to my point that the numbers are too high. They're simply too high. And the federal government, as Richard has pointed out, has almost nothing to say about it.
1:10 p.m.
Policy Analyst and Attorney, As an Individual
Overall the hard political question, the unpopular one that I'd propose--but my colleagues would not, at the immigration bar--is to prioritize another stream for the parents and grandparents. Put at the back of the queue the parents with dependants.
We're not running a parallel selection system. It's unpopular, and it may even be unfair, so...a grain of salt, that one. But if you have as priority processing the older parents, that's where our hearts should be. It's that target group that will see a coffin before a visa.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB
So is it safe to assume--I just want to be very clear on this point--that, in both your opinions, we would be doing a service to Canadians if in fact we were to break up that family support at least into two, possibly three, categories? Is that a fair assessment?
