Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 25th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston, Mr. Lamoureux has the floor.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairperson.

You'll find that everything I'm saying is actually quite accurate. It just doesn't have the Tory spin on it. That's the primary difference.

If you take a look at the citizenship file...as I was saying, 338,000, it's far too many. They're waiting far too long. The minister talks about how, yes, they're putting in a sum of money. Paul Martin's government did designate some $60 million to try to shorten that processing time.

I've asked the minister inside question period to deal with this issue, Mr. Chairperson, and, at the end of the day, the minister has failed to recognize it.

What the Liberal Party would like to do is to see the minister at least make a commitment to get that processing time under 12 months. He was not able to demonstrate that. I would look to the minister, whether it's today or some other point in time, to address the House or the committee and make that commitment. That is that for at least 80% of those individuals who have landed in Canada, who have met the time requirements and other eligibility requirements, they will be able to get their citizenship within the 12 months. That is something that's reasonable, and I think most Canadians would respect that fact, if the minister would make that sort of a commitment.

The other point, which is a major issue, is in regard to the temporary foreign worker program. Like the NDP, I also met with some of the teamsters and actors and actresses who expressed concerns, but I also met with pilots and have had many discussions with constituents. At the end of the day, this minister is responsible for the issuing of temporary work permits. There's no way we can justify a need for 338,000 foreign workers here in Canada.

This is not something that's completely new. The minister has been aware of it, Mr. Chairperson. At the end of the day, he has to take responsibility for the 338,000-plus. What we would like to be able to do is to see the minister make the commitment, a serious, genuine commitment to fix the program.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister Kenney, and to the department.

I also want to ask a question regarding the temporary foreign worker program. I know there have been a lot of questions from the opposition on this, but I want to speak specifically to a certain proposal that's out there. Proponents of a proposal, in fact, I believe it's the official policy of the NDP, believe that temporary foreign workers should actually receive permanent residency here in Canada. It should be automatic.

Now, it is my understanding that a large proportion of temporary foreign workers are actually low-skilled workers. If it's our government's position to find Canadians jobs first, I guess I'm leading up to a specific question. When I think of the temporary foreign worker program, it says “temporary” for a certain reason, it shouldn't become automatic permanent residency.

I'm just wondering, if we were to take the advice of the NDP and other proponents of that proposal, what it would actually mean if the Canadian labour market were permanently flooded with over 340,000 additional people.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I have a hard time getting my head around the position of the party to which you've referred. They criticize the temporary foreign worker program, supposedly as displacing Canadian workers, yet they want all of those people to stay in the Canadian labour market permanently. It seems to me that the alleged displacement effect would be even greater. It seems to be rather obvious. I just can't get my head around that.

For example, I was at the heritage committee where members of the official opposition were demanding that we accelerate access for video game manufacturers to temporary foreign workers in that industry. I think they were basically asking that we make it LMO-exempt. They were criticizing us for the checks and balances that exist in the system as it applies to that particular industry. When I pointed out that the people coming into that occupation, because it's high-skilled, would probably be able to access permanent residency as a result of our reforms—like the introduction of the Canadian experience class—they criticized me, saying it would displace Canadian workers. I think their position is to be against whatever the government proposes, regardless of the policy.

We estimate that about 40,000 people who come here under work permits ultimately obtain permanent residency, or PR. That would include essentially all of the qualified live-in caregivers under the current program. It would include many higher-skilled people who come here on work permits, and now if they do 12 months of skilled work they can obtain PR through the Canadian experience class. But it would most significantly include people who get PR through the provincial nominee programs, typically at mid to high-skill levels.

In the western provinces, one of the reasons you've seen a very substantial increase in immigration levels is that people typically come in on work permits initially and then are offered permanent employment, and indeed permanent residency, by their provinces. There are many pathways.

I think there's a number of misconceptions here. For example, the two largest cohorts in the program are the youth mobility programs. This is the working holiday program, which has about 60,000 visas issued a year. These are open work permits for young people from the ages of 18 to 35 years, for 12 or in some cases 24 months, coming from one of the 16 countries with which we have bilateral reciprocal arrangements.

These are developed countries. These people typically are not contemplating staying here permanently. A young Aussie or Kiwi, or a young French man or woman who comes here on their working holiday visa are coming to experience Canada, perhaps learn a different language, and to work for a few months, typically in the service sector, while they're traveling across Canada. If they get a skilled job for 12 months and they want to stay permanently, they can, in principle, now do so through the CEC. To suggest that all of these people are somehow vulnerable temporary workers who are exploited and working under the thumb of these terrible employers, and all desperately want to stay permanently, is ridiculous.

Similarly, the other largest element of the program is the seasonal agricultural worker program. This represents 34% of the entrants under the labour market opinion streams for the TFW program. There are about 24,000 visas issued a year.

Let's be clear. If we were to shut down the seasonal agricultural worker program—I don't know, but I think that's the policy of the opposition to shut down the program—we would be shutting down huge elements of the Canadian agricultural industry. If you're interested, I would invite you to call as witnesses, representatives of the grape growers in Ontario, the orchard farmers in the Okanagan, the greenhouse operators in Quebec, or the Christmas tree operators in the Annapolis Valley. They will tell you that they find it virtually impossible to hire Canadians to do this work but that the seasonal agricultural worker program works extremely well.

Again, it operates on the basis of bilateral agreements that Canada has with a number of countries, typically in Central America and the Caribbean. They pre-qualify workers. They help to train them. They make them aware of their rights. Those foreign governments ensure the integrity of the program.

They then come here for a few months and make substantially more here than they could back in their home countries. They save up and then go back home for the winter with enormous savings that can help them build houses and start small businesses. Many of the participants are so pleased with the seasonal agricultural worker program that they do it year after year. These are not people who are applying for permanent residency or come here with the expectation of it, but without them our agriculture industry would receive a body blow.

It's all well and good to demagogue this program, but when we actually unpack it and begin to look at the different elements of it.... Yes, there are problems that need to be resolved but we should also recognize that many elements of the program are essential to the Canadian economy, and those people are not seeking PR.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Madam Groguhé.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the minister for being here.

To begin, I would like to make a clarification regarding something Ms. James said. The NDP has no intention of giving permanent residence to all temporary foreign workers. We have basically insisted that the conditions and rights of these workers be studied more carefully in order to improve them.

Mr. Minister, my question has to do with a statement you made in 2011 regarding refugees: “We pledge to increase the number of refugees we resettle by 20%”.

For 2012-13, Canada missed its quantitative target for the number of refugees received by 25%. Worse still, that number dropped by 26% over the previous year. By 2015-16, you will reduce refugee protection funding by 16%, in addition to cutting 385 additional positions at CIC.

How are you going to meet this 20% commitment?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

First of all, Mr. Chair, I would remind the member that the government announced in 2010 an increase of 20% in our targets for refugee resettlement. That means increasing the number of refugees resettled from 11,500 in 2010 to 14,000 to reach our target last year, and that was a gradual increase.

Unfortunately, as the member said, we missed our target last year because of the war in Syria. In fact, our largest refugee resettlement program was for Iraqis in Syria, with a target of 4,000 a year, for the government's private sponsorship and resettlement programs. Because of the civil war in Syria, we had to close our immigration office in Damascus. It was the largest in the global network for processing the applications from resettled refugees. It enormously hindered our ability to process those applications. That is why we were only able to admit about 2,000 Iraqi refugees last year, compared to our target of 4,000. So, it is true that we missed that target.

I also want to point out that we had some operational challenges in East Africa, particularly at the Nairobi immigration office, which covers 18 countries with an enormous number of refugees. However, I am working closely with the two departments to find operational solutions for resettled refugees from the Middle East. For example, I increased our targets for Iranian and Iraqi refugees in Turkey, with those files being processed in Ankara. We also moved most of our operational resources for refugees from Damascus to Ankara. We are also working with the UN to identify other priority populations for refugee resettlement.

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

Mr. Minister, I would ask that your response be brief because time is limited.

I have a question about a current situation. I was contacted by the Haitian community in Montreal. A certain number of refugees came to Canada after the earthquake in 2010. The community is currently concerned because it is afraid that a significant number of refugees may be deported. Could you tell us about the situation and how we can reassure this community?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

There is a temporary moratorium on the removal of Haitian nationals. Because of that policy, no removals are being carried out, except for Haitian nationals who are ineligible due to serious criminal behaviour. The moratorium on removals does not affect foreigners who are ineligible because of serious criminal behaviour. The rumours are not correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I just want to quote from an editorial. It's not common that national editorial boards make the kind of statement that we've seen from that of the National Post, but this is just one from a year ago:

Not one of these moves is anti-immigrant.

It is referring to Minister Kenney's long line of changes that have resulted, among other things, to the reduction of the backlog.

Indeed, during Mr. Kenney’s time as Immigration minister, Canada’s annual intake of immigrants has risen by over 15%. What Mr. Kenney’s changes have done—

In this case, we're talking about the changes to the refugee program.

—by removing fraudulent and meaningless claims for asylum and by placing an onus on newcomers to adapt to Canadian society—is restore the value of Canadian citizenship.

That's the type of statement that has been made by many objective observers who might have tended to be critical. With that context, Minister, we thank you again for being here, and for your hard work that has received acknowledgement from all around the House on many occasions.

I'd like to refer to another quote. This is from a university professor, who said that he would like to take a year off, but unfortunately for him, and I'm paraphrasing, he says every time he goes down to his basement to get something he comes back up and a new change is announced in your ministry, Mr. Minister.

Your changes have been transformational and comprehensive. I know that at one point you actually placed on your website a summary of them so that we could keep up with what has happened.

What are you hearing from the experts? What would be your comment in terms of what the immigrant communities are saying about these transformational changes?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

There's no unanimity on these matters, but I think my general impression, Mr. Chairman, is that there is fairly broad recognition that many aspects of our system had become dysfunctional. We were seeing, on the whole, relative declining economic results for newcomers to Canada. We saw these out-of-control backlogs and ridiculous wait times. We saw the absurdity of admitting large numbers of newcomers to an economy with labour and skill shortages, many of them to be unemployed and underemployed. I think that's the experience of many newcomers.

That's why, generally, I have found that the changes we have made, both to make our economic immigration system more responsive to the economy and to reinforce the integrity of our system, and to ensure that it is characterized by the consistent application of fair rules, those two themes, in my experience, have been widely accepted.

Quite frankly, like all of you, I'm elected, and we couldn't have embarked on transformational immigration change if it weren't accepted broadly by Canadians, including new Canadians.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I think that's a very critical sector that you have to respond to.

Can we switch the topic to exit information?

I've noticed in the main estimates there's funding for information and sharing with the United States as part of the perimeter agreement. Could you elaborate on how the sharing of that information will be beneficial to Canada?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

In December I signed a treaty with U.S. Ambassador David Jacobson, which we will table shortly in the House of Commons as a precursor to its ratification, a comprehensive information-sharing agreement with the United States that is part of our beyond the border action plan between the Canadian and U.S. governments.

This information-sharing agreement will massively improve the quality of our immigration security screening, because it will allow us to share, initially, biographic data on applications for temporary residency in Canada from around the world, and eventually, biometric data as we put in place our new fingerprint system later this year.

Those records, those names, and eventually fingerprints will essentially be, to put it in common parlance, “pinged” against the U.S databases, which include records on tens of millions of foreign nationals. So their databases are far more robust than ours are.

That is to say that the United States has much more robust databases that include foreign nationals who may represent a security risk, who may have been deported from the U.S. for criminality, who may be on watch-lists for national security purposes.

So by pinging these names, and then fingerprints, against the U.S. databases, what will happen is that if there is a match, if they see that their records have someone on a watch-list, or someone who was previously deported, that match will come back to us as a positive hit. Then the CBSA will basically pick up the phone and call the Department of Homeland Security to do a manual verification of the identity, to make sure it's not a false positive, and then find out whether or not the person is admissible to Canada.

As a last point, this will all conform to Canadian privacy laws.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You have four minutes, Mr. Menegakis.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thought the minister was here for the full time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

He is, but we went over on this, when your colleague....

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Oh, I see.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

And the clock's still ticking.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

I understand.

Thank you, Minister, and thanks to your officials for being here with us once again.

Minister, I have a series of questions here, although I'm not sure I'll be able to get to many of them in the four minutes.

It boggles the mind to hear the member of the Liberal Party, in his rampage and preamble, in the five minutes he had, go on and speak about backlogs as if his party were totally innocent, completely ignoring the fact that we inherited some 800,000 people for whom the Liberals kept pressing the plus button on their computer and adding to the list.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

It was 840,000, to be precise.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Minister, I know your time is very valuable, and I deeply appreciate the fact that you take the time to come so often to this committee. I want to give you an opportunity to respond to some of the inaccuracies that were spewed by the member opposite not some half-hour ago.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I appreciate that since, in my 16 years in this place, it's the first time I've seen a member during the testimony of a minister, not actually allow a question to be answered. I appreciate the opportunity.

First of all, Mr. Lamoureux suggested that all of the backlog reduction was a function of the legislated elimination of the 100,000 files in last year's budget implementation act. In point of fact, as you see, the backlog has gone from over one million to just over 600,000, a reduction of 400,000.

About 280,000 of those persons—not 400,000—were affected by the legislated FSW backlog reduction last year. The balance was thanks to pauses or limits on new applications, which were opposed by Mr. Lamoureux's party, and by an increase in admissions.

The average number of permanent residents admitted between 1994 and 2005—that is to say, during the tenure of the previous government—was 222,000. The average number of permanent residents admitted from 2006 until 2012 has been 256,000. There has been a 14% increase in total admissions, which has helped modestly deal with inventories, but most importantly it has been....

But here is the point. Had none of those actions been taken, we would be on track, as I've pointed out, for a total backlog of over two million.

Mr. Lamoureux may have another opportunity on this committee and I would ask him to explain what he would have done to prevent a backlog of two million from developing in the current system.

I would also point out to him that the previous Liberal government, when Mr. Coderre was in my position, sought also to eliminate hundreds of thousands of backlogged applications in the federal skilled worker program, when he sought to retroactively apply new selection criteria for the federal skilled worker program in 2003.

So the Liberal government sought to—in Mr. Lamoureux's words—“delete” hundreds of thousands of applications from that backlog. Oh, it did. It's remarkable that he doesn't even know what the Liberal government sought to do. But Mr. Chairman, the difference is that they did it incompetently, because the Federal Court said that the way they attempted to apply those rules retroactively was illegal.

However, I would point out to this committee that the Federal Court responded to an application for judicial review of our legislative backlog reduction just two weeks ago by confirming its legality, that this was a legitimate application of the law. So we have successfully and competently done what Mr. Lamoureux's government unsuccessfully and incompetently sought to do.

I would also point out that he talks about the parent and grandparent program. He doesn't like the fact that there has been a two-year temporary pause. He never mentions the 60% increase in admissions in that program. He never mentions the super visa, which is an excellent alternative that 16,000 people have so far availed themselves of.

I again challenge him to tell us what the Liberal Party would do with the parent program, because without the temporary pause in applications we would be on track for an estimated backlog of 251,000 people in that program by the end of 2015, with a 15-year wait time.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We have to move on.