Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[Karine Paré]

In the service fees act, the consultation aspect is covered, in a way, via the regulatory process. That's our assessment. However, there are some areas that are a bit problematic from IRCC's perspective in terms of the unique nature of our clientele. It's more related to the fact that in the service fees act there are penalties when service standards are not met. We would need to remit a certain portion of the fees that were paid directly to the applicants. Our applicants are across the world. We have some service standards, but due to the fact that we have some security aspects when we do processing, and also the fact that we have to deal with many different partners when we process applications, it can limit our ability to consistently meet service standards. We want to have flexibility on that.

There's also the fact that some areas of our business are not controlled. The intake is not controlled. We don't necessarily control the number of applications we will be receiving. Service standards are an indication for clients, but if we're not able to meet the service standard in certain circumstances where application intake is really high, we want to have that flexibility.

More importantly, the inflation factor that's included in the service fees act is a good way to manage fees. However, some of our clientele are more vulnerable. We want to have the flexibility to decide if we want to increase fees or not, and not necessarily have that systematic inflation factor included in our fees. It's really to have a bit more flexibility due to our clientele, who are unique in nature, and our operational reality.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Sorry, but I'm not really following you in your argument or your logic. How do the service standards relate to the fee, exactly, and how do they impact the setting of those fees for people? For instance, you were talking about trying to set a good standard. Does that impact the cost, and if so, in what way?

I'm not an immigration specialist, so if you could dumb it down for me, I would really appreciate it. No jargon.

[Karine Paré]

The service standards are not necessarily linked to fee setting, but if you look at the service fees act, we need to have service standards by business lines. Each department needs to establish service standards by business lines. That's one element. If we don't meet service standards in the service fees act, you need to have a system to remit the fee to the applicant where you have not met the service standard.

That's the relation to the User Fees Act. It's not necessarily in setting your fees. It's more in the process of managing your fees.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Has it often happened that Immigration Canada hasn't met the service requirements in the last few years? Is that something that has occurred often, where you would have to remit the service fees to clientele who didn't receive an appropriate service, or good enough service, or the high-quality service they were expecting for the fees they paid?

[Karine Paré]

We are not subject to those clauses at this point, so I cannot comment on this specifically.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm just trying to understand this. In the budget bill here, you're asking that the service fees act does not apply to a fee for the provision of services in relation to the processing of an application, but the service fees act does apply to you right now, correct?

[Karine Paré]

I'm not the expert on the service fees act, obviously, because this bill is not from my department. From the preliminary discussion we had on that bill, the service fees act would replace the User Fees Act. The User Fees Act was established in 2004. A department that has not changed their fees since 2004 is not subject to the User Fees Act until they change their fees. The fees we are talking about today have not been changed since 2002 and are therefore not subject to the User Fees Act.

I don't know if it answers your question.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

It does to an extent. Maybe my memory is wrong, but as I remember it, there was an increase in the fees required for a lot of these services for people who were applying for permanent residency. Why does the act then not apply to you now?

I don't mean to waste the time of the committee, but since we're here until tomorrow morning, we might as well get to the bottom of it.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Karine Paré]

Our permanent residence fees have not changed since 2002. Yes, some fees from Immigration and Refugees Canada were changed in the past; however, those fees were exempt from the User Fees Act. This is the reason we were not subject to the clause of the service standards.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You also mentioned that the reason you want this exemption is the clientele you serve. For instance, overseas is it difficult to collect these service fees.

Matt de Vlieger, I believe you also mentioned that you want to remain competitive with other international markets. Could you discuss that a little more? Obviously, to exempt one ministry compared to others is a fairly major change. I'd just like to ensure that it's appropriate.

[Karine Paré]

Yes, competitiveness from a fee perspective, definitely. We want to make sure as we review our fees that we are not charging more, necessarily, than other countries that have similar immigration systems. We want to make sure that we are competitive with those countries and that we can attract our clientele. That's an element we consider when we do a fee review. That's the competitive aspect that I was talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Can you tell us in comparable dollars what our fees in Canada are versus what they are in the United States and what they are in Australia? Are we comparable? If you can't tell us today, could you get it to us?

[Karine Paré]

I don't have the analysis with me, but we can provide it.

I can tell you that our fees are quite a bit lower than those of similar countries in terms of the permanent residence application. There are many factors that we need to consider, because every country is a bit different in terms of their immigration system, but when we compare similar business lines, our fees are lower.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Mr. Ouellette.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have one final question.

Are there stats about the impact of fees on people applying to various jurisdictions? If the fees are set at a certain level, will you see less or more, or do they not even matter in people's calculations? Do they just say that they want to go to Canada and that no matter how much it costs—if it's $10,000 or $600—they're going to go to Canada? If someone says they want the American dream and they're going to the United States no matter what, or they want to be in Australia, what impact is there? Are there statistics or studies on that impact that you know of?

[Karine Paré]

We don't have studies at this point, but we are reviewing our fees, and this is definitely something we want to look at in terms of the elasticity of the demand. I think that's what we want to see: how much of an impact the fee has on the overall clientele approach in terms of coming to Canada or not. We don't have those studies at this point, not that I know of.

[Robert-Falcon Ouellette, Liberal, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

We did stray a little from the division, but maybe we need to look at a briefing on that area at some point.

Are there any other questions? Have we exhausted all the questions?

Thanks to all of you for coming today. Also, our apologies for having you come before us before today and not being able to deal with the division due to time.

We will turn to part 4, division 14, on the Employment Insurance Act, with Mr. Shaw, director, employment insurance part II benefits and measures, and Ms. Young, manager, employment insurance part II benefits and measures.

Welcome, Ms. Young and Mr. Shaw. Who is going to do the presentation?

[Duncan Shaw, Director, Employment Insurance Part II Benefits & Measures, Employment Programs Policy & Design, Skills & Employment Branch, Department of Employment and Social Development]

I'll start.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The floor is yours.

[Duncan Shaw]

Thanks very much.

We're from Employment and Social Development Canada.

The purpose of part II of the Employment Insurance Act is to help maintain a sustainable employment insurance system through the establishment of employment benefits for insured participants and the maintenance of a national employment system. This is carried out through the establishment of employment programs, referred to as “employment benefits and support measures”, which help unemployed individuals in Canada prepare for, find, and maintain suitable employment.

Part II of the act helps us support similar programs provided by the provincial and territorial governments through bilateral agreements on labour market development and by indigenous organization agreement holders, in keeping with the aboriginal skills and employment training strategy.

The Employment Insurance Act prescribes that only insured participants can have access to employment benefits programs such as skills development, wage subsidies, and self-employment assistance. The current definition of “insured participant” under the act is someone “who requests assistance under employment benefits” and is an unemployed person “for whom a benefit period is established” or “whose benefit period has ended within the previous 60 months”.

In order to develop the amendments for division 14 in part 4, we staged major consultations with provinces, territories, and stakeholders last summer, and then developed these amendments that expand eligibility for the employment benefits to include unemployed individuals who have made a minimum employment insurance premium contribution above the premium refund threshold in at least five out of the last 10 years. This threshold is currently set at $2,000 of insurable earnings as per subsection 96(4) of the act. That's the first part of the eligibility changes.

The second piece is around employment assistance services under the support measures. Support measures are programs such as employment counselling and job search assistance. Those are currently available to all unemployed Canadians. Now, with these amendments, this changes it to all unemployed and employed Canadians. Additionally, it increases the flexibility to support employer-sponsored training by expanding eligibility under the labour market partnerships measure to include employers whose employees need this assistance in order to maintain their current employment, for example, to adjust to technological and structural changes in the economy.

These three major amendments under employment insurance part II and for the labour market development agreements and ASETS program would come into effect on April 1, 2018.

With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Are there any questions?

Ms. Hutchings.

[Gudie Hutchings, Liberal, Long Range Mountains, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Shaw, I was wondering about EI and maternity benefits. If a mother has already applied for benefits, is she going to be able to access the extended benefits when the bill comes into effect in July, or is it just for new applicants?

[Duncan Shaw]

These aren't extended benefits. This is part II, so it's the employment programs. They are delivered by the provinces and territories and by the aboriginal organizations for training. This has nothing to do with the maternity benefits. It's a different part of the act.