Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 19th, 2013

[Richard Kurland]

Well, even this morning, I concluded my Ottawa rounds unofficially between the off-record senior officials and their take. I've seen turf wars blossom within 48 hours. HRSDC closely guards its turf. Unless there's an explicit permission to share information with CIC, they're not going to do it. So nip this one in the bud, please.

It's the same with CRA. That may be more touchy. There's a longer history, but at a minimum, instead of financial statements, how about a simple T2?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you.

Can you expand on your second point regarding your concerns about having bureaucrats assessing information that is already available from employers?

[Richard Kurland]

How they already...?

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Your second point was about having concerns about bureaucrats assessing information that's already available from employers. Can you expand on that a little bit?

[Richard Kurland]

There are layers of redundancy presently built into the selection system. Employers have to file virtually identical information at a minimum of two government departments. Why? A common platform on intake and information sharing would resolve that.

It seems to be common sense, but our information technology systems are silo-designed. There's one for an LMO, one for a CIC purpose, with identical information in each. So you're doubling up the time and effort, which is a burden to the Canadian economy and to those businesses. If HRSDC and CIC were allowed to formally, officially, strategically share client information, that would go a long way. Just as it's the same tax dollar, it's the same client.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

So you're saying the redundancies that are built into this silo-style design of the information system management are actually not creating a more robust system. Redundancies are usually built into information management systems to make them more robust, but here it's not making the system more robust; it's actually slowing it down.

[Richard Kurland]

This is waste. This is absolute waste.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Right.

[Richard Kurland]

It hearkens back to the departmental design. In the good old days, Immigration and HRSDC were one and the same shop. What they've done is they've pulled out the baby and left the umbilical cord attached to the mother. Well, if that's the situation, you have to, by regulation, ensure that it's one package in order for everything to work properly.

[Rathika Sitsabaiesan, NDP, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Thank you. I have one more minute, so I'm going to try to get one more in.

You were answering Mr. Weston's question about being concerned about picking one family or another, giving priority to one industry over another. Other than this ombudsman, is there any other way that you can suggest to identify, first of all, if this is happening, and then how can we prevent it?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

A short answer.

[Richard Kurland]

A very short answer: be transparent. Don't do it in private. Have open consultation with the provinces and the stakeholders, an open, almost e-based system, on the CIC website that inputs all people's needs. That way everyone can see the political choice being made by the immigration public servants on who gets a visa and why.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Kurland. Thank you, Madame Sitsabaiesan.

Mr. McCallum, you have the floor for five minutes.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Kydd, I don't have time to ask you a question, but I just wanted to say I agree with your sentiments. I have nothing against Ph.D.s—I'm a Ph.D.—but I've found it very frustrating over the years that we have this stereotype of Ph.D.s driving taxis and we have a huge demand for the skilled trades. So I do agree there's a case for revamping our point system, as you described.

But I have to go to Mr. Kurland on this issue of wizards behind the curtain. I think in one small sense what you're saying is in line with what I was saying, that rather than have ministerial instructions given on a day without any prior consultation, one could give some advance notice, as one does with regulations, to get input. That way it would be less likely to be decided at a dinner party and issued at two in the morning.

[Richard Kurland]

Yes. I had contemplated a 30-day notice period or a 60-day notice period of an incoming ministerial instruction, which would stimulate consultation—desired or otherwise.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I do agree that running things increasingly on ministerial instructions without proper notice is an issue, and I do agree with you that it contrasts with the point system announced in the 1970s.

I guess my next question is to ask whether perhaps you were being polite when you talked about arbitrary power in the hands of public servants as opposed to politicians. It may be that those public servants were doing the bidding of politicians, so indirectly it is politicians.

I am not accusing this government of anything, but I would think, in theory—don't think Conservative-Liberal—that if everything is done by ministerial instructions issued on the spur of the moment, there's a chance that the system could be biased in favour of particular regions or ethnic groups, or whatever, that might suit the party in power.

When you say we're moving to a less transparent and honest system, is that what you had in the back of your mind?

[Richard Kurland]

Historically, I've seen it happen, and my concern is that outside the light of day, bad things grow.

To fully illuminate the political choices, we require a transparent selection system. Indeed, who could resist the political candy—any government—to curry favour with a desired region, industry, cluster of families, in a marginal swing constituency?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Exactly.

I think you're agreeing with me that this system, while it might be technically good for the reasons you have given, does have the potential for political, electoral, abuse. And the more the system goes towards one directed by ministerial directives as opposed to regulations, the more that is a risk.

I think we're in agreement on that and—

[Richard Kurland]

I think we're almost in agreement. That might be a little heavy.

Overall, it's how to counterbalance. I focus on the glass being half full, so to counterbalance we have to put in place someone who will keep the CIC public servants honest.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

What about a government that is accountable to Parliament. Would that help?

[Richard Kurland]

Government is accountable to Parliament.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

That takes that accountability in a serious way and informs Parliament better, and it gives Parliament more opportunities—

[Richard Kurland]

I would point this out. For the first time in Canadian immigration history, discrimination is no longer part of the overseas selection process. The rules that came in within the last half decade created a first come, first served process. Prior to that, it was first come, first served based on where you came from.

With that kind of track record, I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the current group.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Okay.

You still, I believe, agree, whatever we might think of history, that this current system does raise potential political risk.

[Richard Kurland]

Yes, and I'm very concerned about that potential. There's no monitoring. There's no control. There's no practical oversight.