Finance Committee on May 29th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

I will call the meeting to order and thank folks for their patience while we were in camera for a few moments.

We're under the order of reference of May 9 on Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures. We're here to hear witnesses on various divisions that we didn't get through yet.

At our last session, we hadn't completed our questioning of those who were here from the office of infrastructure of Canada and the department: Mr. Campbell, assistant deputy minister; Mr. Fleming, chief, infrastructure, sectoral policy analysis, economic development and corporate finance branch; and Mr. Grover, senior policy analyst at the Canada infrastructure bank transition office.

Gentlemen, I think you had given a presentation and we were already into a series of questions, unless, Glenn, you have anything you want to add to start off.

[Glenn Campbell, Assistant Deputy Minister, Canada Infrastructure Bank Transition Office, Office of Infrastructure of Canada]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The floor is now open to questions on part 4, division 18. Are there further questions or did we exhaust the questions in the last round and these folks have made a trip over here just to get some exercise?

I guess you just got some exercise, folks. There seem to be no further questions. You must have answered them all successfully previously.

Are there no further questions? All right. Thank you.

Thank you, Glenn and company. You don't get off that easy very often. Run while the going's good.

We'll bring up the next panel, which is from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, on part 4, division 13, the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

From the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, we have Mr. de Vlieger, acting director general, strategic policy and planning; Ms. Paré, executive director, cost management, finance branch; and, Ms. Côté, acting director, strategic policy and planning.

Welcome, folks. I assume you have a short presentation.

[Matt de Vlieger, Acting Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Yes. We have a short presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

The floor is yours.

[Matt de Vlieger]

Thank you, Chair and committee members.

As mentioned, my name is Matt de Vlieger. I'm the acting director general of strategic policy at Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.

I'm here today to speak to the legislative amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act dealing with the functioning of the express entry application management system. Today we're looking at part 4, division 13, and specifically at clauses 300 to 303.

My colleague Karine Paré, the executive director of cost management, is with us this afternoon. She'll speak to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act amendments that relate to the user fees.

By way of context on the part dealing with express entry, express entry is the Government of Canada's electronic system for managing applications and selecting skilled immigrants for permanent residency in Canada. It really has become the backbone of our points-based system for economic immigration. It was launched in January 2015.

The amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that are being proposed are largely technical in nature and are designed to ensure that the system is functioning as intended. There are eight amendments in clauses 300 to 303. Two of them are changes to only the French portion of the act. Jurilinguists had a look at those and thought we could improve them.

I'll focus on the six amendments.

I'd say that a few of them are really focused on client service and processing efficiency. The department is seeking a clear authority to ensure that candidates who decline an invitation to apply in the express entry system within the prescribed period go back into the express entry pool and are eligible for future invitations to apply. That's a facilitative amendment for clients of our express entry system.

A second amendment is to provide authority for immigration officers not to refuse an application even in circumstances when there are changes in the period between candidates' invitation to apply and when they put in their application for permanent residence. Again, that's facilitative to the candidates who've put their expressions of interest into the express entry system.

A third one is looking to provide flexibility to administer rounds of invitations resulting in different ranks in different programs. The express entry management system is applicable to three of our flagship economic programs—the Canadian experience class, the federal skilled worker program, and the federal skilled trades program—as well as a portion of the provincial nominee program. This would allow us to deal at the same time with an invitation to apply around two or three of those programs with different ranks, and that will facilitate both for clients and for the department the processing of those applications.

A fourth change relates to allowing changes to the minimum entry criteria to apply to people already in the express entry pool to ensure that they do not get invited without meeting the new criteria. If we change minimum entry criteria to any of our programs and that happens between the period in which they are invited to apply, it avoids their having to submit an application that would have to be turned down and they would lose the application fee they submitted. Again, this is something that's looking at the client service and ensuring that this works properly for clients.

Then there are a couple of technical amendments that relate to our relationships with partners in express entry, specifically provinces and the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada. One is to ensure that provincial nominees in the express entry pool—I mentioned that there's a portion of the provincial nominee program that runs through the express entry program—are invited only as provincial nominees and not under any other program. This is something that provinces were looking for in terms of the management of the system, because they expend considerable efforts and resources to screen applicants through their programs and, if they do so, they're hoping that they come through the provincial nominee program and do not get pulled as one of the federally streamed candidates.

Finally, there is a clause that deals with information sharing. Again, that's for provinces in particular as third parties, so we can share information with them that the department generates about express entry candidates, including things like the client identifier and their comprehensive ranking system score. Again, this is a facilitative amendment.

Those are the technical amendments that we're looking for in the budget implementation act in clauses 300 to 303. My colleague will cover the other amendments dealing with the User Fees Act portions.

[Karine Paré, Executive Director, Cost Management, Finance Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you.

Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada is proposing to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow IRCC to set permanent residencies in a timely manner. More specifically, these amendments would exempt IRCC from the requirements set out under the proposed service fees act for the processing of our permanent residence applications, permanent resident cards, and permanent resident travel documents, as well as the right of permanent residence fee. These amendments would provide IRCC more flexibility in the management of its fees considering the unique nature of our clientele, and also in relation to the processing continuum, which includes several delivery partners for our immigration business lines.

It is important to note that the permanent residence fees have not been reviewed since 2002. As a result, Canadians are subsidizing an important portion of the cost of processing these applications. Despite these amendments, IRCC will still respect the spirit of the act by consulting some of its clientele, as appropriate, via the regulatory process. We'll also establish service standards by business lines. We will continue to report on service standards and costs via the departmental plan.

We will also respect the legislative framework around fees, such as the Financial Administration Act, which stipulates that we cannot charge more than the cost of processing a service. More importantly, we also will ensure that our fees remain competitive with those of other countries, such as the U.K., New Zealand, Australia, and the U.S. This is important, especially in the context of increasing levels, to make sure that we are competitive and that we can still attract immigrants to Canada.

My colleague and I are now happy to take questions from the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you for your presentations.

We'll start with Mr. Albas.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To our witnesses, thank you for the work you do for Canadians every day.

I would like to start with you, Ms. Paré.

In regard to the changes, obviously the User Fees Act is a very cumbersome piece of legislation. It was put forward by a private member's bill. It has hamstrung many departments, including yours, over the years in regard to being able to have timely and quick changes to rates that make sure the costs of citizenship in terms of processing and applications and whatnot are covered by the applicants and not by the taxpayer. That's partly due to inflation and partly due to all sorts of things; obviously, there's more process now than there was 20 years ago.

In regard to these changes, does it open the door for an expedited service whereby someone could pay to have a much more streamlined service in comparison to regular streams?

[Karine Paré]

These are all elements that we consider when we do a fee review. In reviewing our fees, we look at the different services we offer. We can look at these types of services. We will be envisioning those types of services as we perform the review for our permanent residence streams.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay. Just so I have an abundantly clear understanding, will the flexibility that you are calling for in these amendments allow for the establishment of an expedited service whereby someone in an entrepreneurial class, etc., or someone who is just willing to pay more to accelerate their process of immigration would be allowed to do that?

[Karine Paré]

To charge for an expedited service is not necessarily directly linked to the amendments we're....

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

With these amendments, Parliament would be giving the authority either to the Governor in Council or directly to the minister's office to implement, by regulation, that set schedule. Is that correct? The schedule would allow them to set fees for any particular services, including, perhaps, an expedited process, with a shorter time period and a slightly higher fee to accelerate through the system.

[Karine Paré]

As I explained before, we are always bound by the Financial Administration Act, so we always have to make sure that the fee we are charging is relevant to the cost of processing. In the case of an expedited service, we would have to assess the cost of actually providing that expedited service and charge that fee, so that we're not overcharging.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Yes, for recovery, but do these amendments allow the government to do that?

[Karine Paré]

These amendments in particular? No.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Okay, thank you.

Just to review the overall changes, I have a particular example with regard to the express entry program. Right now there is a lady in my riding who applied, and she had an issue with her payment due to a technical blip. She was unable to get someone to take her payment through the system for whatever reason. She now is being told, since she was in line, that because of that payment she has to go back to the end of the line. That usually wouldn't be an issue, but the thing is that with the changes to the points system, it doesn't allow for her to qualify anymore.

Is there anything in these changes to allow officials to be flexible and fair to people who, through no fault of their own, get stuck in the system? Would this allow officials to help people in these circumstances?

[Matt de Vlieger]

While I can't comment on the particular case, I would say that these amendments are pretty discrete. They help address some of the particular challenges, but in very narrow circumstances.

I can give you one example. If someone has entered an invitation to apply and they've had a subsequent change of circumstance that would change their points—they've had a birthday and their age has changed—this would allow the immigration officer to allow that candidacy to continue. There is some narrow flexibility.

I'm not aware of the particular case in terms of the fee payment and the cost payment. It doesn't sound like that would be addressed, but I can't comment without knowing the case.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

No, I understand that. I've made the minister's office well aware of that case.

To me, because we are so dependent on computers, if there is a glitch where someone has tried to correct it multiple times but for whatever reason cannot, because of said glitch, make the payment, then I think most people would say that the system in that case would need review. I really hope we're not looking the other way when we have these small glitches where in some areas we're offering flexibility for certain things for certain people and in other areas we're basically leaving those other people on the sidelines.

Thank you again for your service to our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you, folks.

Thank you, Mr. Albas.

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I have a small question for Mr. de Vlieger. It follows up on Mr. Albas' question.

Let's take the hypothetical of a family applying through the entrepreneur class. The entrepreneur is applying through that class for herself plus her family. Three of the kids are 12 and under, but one of them is 17 and will turn 18 sometime during the processing of that application. This is where you're asking for that flexibility to not change the requirement so that the 18-year-old would have to apply on her or his own.

[Matt de Vlieger]

No, not so much. This would apply to the application of the principal applicant. You mentioned an entrepreneur. That would be the person submitting an application on behalf of themselves and their dependent family. The points are associated with their human capital. It would be that person's age, not their dependent children, that gets them the points.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

All right. That's fine.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Wayne Easter]

Thank you.

Mr. Ouellette.

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

I have a few questions about the service fees act. Perhaps you could go into greater detail here.

When you read the service fees act, it's really about providing a framework where departments and ministries need to justify any increases in fees, and ensuring it's done in a timely way. Can you describe how you came to your decision that you needed to be exempt from that act? What would it enable you to do in the long term? I'm a little unclear about that. Perhaps you could explain that for the immigrant people and newcomers to this country.