Evidence of meeting #23 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was estimates.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Richard Fadden  Deputy Minister, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Wayne Ganim  Chief Financial Officer, Director General Finance Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

I call the meeting to order.

Good morning, and welcome.

On behalf of our committee I want to welcome the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to our committee hearing this morning. Also, I want to welcome his officials, Deputy Minister Richard Fadden, and Wayne Ganim, chief financial officer and director general of the finance branch. Welcome.

The minister has been here on a couple of occasions, so he's well familiar with the operation of the committee. He is here to speak to us about his estimates today. The committee of course will have comments and questions afterwards. I think the minister will be here until about 10:45, after which we will call the various votes in the estimates, and what have you.

Minister, I'll turn it over to you for your opening comments.

9 a.m.

Medicine Hat Alberta

Conservative

Monte Solberg ConservativeMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a real pleasure to appear before the committee again.

Bonjour.

I place before you, my colleagues, my department's supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year, which I respectfully submit for the committee's consideration and approval.

I believe the majority of the items here are fairly routine in nature, so if I may, I will use my opening remarks to address some broader matters regarding citizenship and immigration. I will of course respond to any questions members may have.

Accountability is a priority for this government, Mr. Chairman.

Over the past few months, I've had the opportunity to travel across this country and see firsthand how Citizenship and Immigration is contributing to the country.

At citizenship ceremonies I've seen the joy and determination in the faces of new citizens. In Manitoba I met with Karen refugees who've arrived over the past few months. I've met and talked with people at community agencies, who work with dedication and care to deliver support to newcomers. I've also seen how much more we could do to build this country, and why we must do more. Immigration has been a cornerstone of our prosperity for decades, and it will be even more critical in the future; in fact it's expected that immigration will account for all net growth in our labour force within ten years.

We need that labour force.

This summer in Whistler, British Columbia, business owners told me they were short 3,500 workers. They are worried that they won't have the people to run the ski lifts, work in the restaurants, or make beds this winter. Managers are already pitching in to clean hotel rooms.

But the problem is bigger than that. The B.C. Ministry of Economic Development says new infrastructure projects planned or under way are valued at $100 billion. In my home province of Alberta, the Canadian Energy Research Institute says $100 billion will be invested in the oil sands by 2020. There is a desperate need for workers to support these investments.

Our future success depends to a very large extent on our ability to address these challenges.

Certainly we need more people. As members are aware, I tabled our new immigration plan last week. We intend to accept between 240,000 and 265,000 immigrants in 2007, the highest planning range in 15 years. But our success is not measured in mere numbers; success in immigration is ensuring that those who come here are happy and stay here. In the 1980s, after a year in Canada, skilled worker immigrants were earning one-quarter more than the Canadian average. In 2003 their earnings were almost one-third less than their Canadian-born counterparts after one year. We need to look at what went wrong over the past decade and fix it.

Settlement funding for newcomers has been static since the mid-1990s, but the number of immigrants has been increasing steadily. We have to do more than say welcome to Canada, and good luck. Immigrants have to be supported with adequate resources. Settlement programs are exactly what you would expect—programs that help newcomers get settled here. Language and literacy training is key, but integration programs are just as important. Teaching newcomers how to register their children in school, how to find a doctor, and how to look for a job are all critical to welcoming newcomers and getting them off to a good start. Those are simple things to you and me, but essential services for newcomers.

That is why our government has committed an additional $307 million to settlement funding over the next two years to support our partners in the delivery of these important services.

We're also providing direct help to newcomers. We've cut the $975 permanent residence fee in half. Since that took effect, we've saved about $22 million for 46,000 people. We work hard to attract skilled workers and professionals. That's what a responsive immigration program does, and I will be pursuing measures to make the system even more responsive to both short- and long-term needs. For example, there are some 150,000 international students in Canada right now. They earn Canadian qualifications. Since we opened the off-campus job market to them in May, more than 7,000 have received work permits under this program. These are young, motivated people with Canadian qualifications and now, potentially, Canadian work experience, yet we send them home when their student visas expire. Many of these young people may wish to stay and accept jobs in Canada.

I want them to have that opportunity.

We need these well-educated highly skilled people. But I've also been told by employers, time and again, that this country was built with bricks and mortar, and of course we will be building that for some time yet. In other words, as they used to say, we also need people with hard hands. We rely on the temporary foreign worker program to meet this need, and there's no question it helps. We accept 100,000 temporary workers a year. We've opened new temporary foreign worker units in Vancouver and Calgary to work more closely with employers to meet their needs. We will do more. This fall, I will take steps to make the temporary foreign worker program more responsive to labour market needs, while looking at more fundamental changes to ensure it can meet Canada's needs in the years ahead.

At the same time, it is clear that we need many of these people on a more than temporary basis.

Temporary workers are getting Canadian work experience, learning our languages, and adapting to the Canadian way of life. They have all the ingredients for success, and just when they're getting settled here, we send them home. I've made no secret of my intention to look at ways to encourage successful students with work experience and temporary foreign workers to stay in Canada permanently. Let's give them the opportunity to call Canada home.

These changes will have an important impact. What's more, they will not compromise the integrity of the system, or the overarching need to play our part in protecting the security of Canada and its allies. Still, immigration alone will not solve Canada's labour and skill shortages. Nor will immigration alone secure our future prosperity. We need to make the best use of the human resources we already have, examining things such as training and education, workforce mobility and bringing under-represented groups into the workforce. My colleague, Minister Finley, is the lead on broader human resources issues, and I am working with her as she provides leadership on foreign credentials recognition.

There is no question that immigration can do more. We are doing more. We will do even more in the future.

We will increase our capacity to deliver the skills and people our economy needs by giving international students and foreign workers the chance to put what they've learned in Canada to work for Canada.

I would like to thank honourable members for their time.

I look forward to your questions and advice as we carry out our part of the job of building Canada.

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Minister, for your opening statement.

We will now go to our seven-minute round of questioning.

Our first questioner will be Mr. Telegdi. You have seven minutes, sir.

9:10 a.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

Minister, welcome. We are pleased to have you here.

I notice from your opening statements you have a great deal of focus on the need for new workers, driven by the Canadian economy. It's with this in mind that I'm going to pose a question to you.

When we changed our new points system in 2002 it really threw things out of whack. It made it much more difficult for people the economy needs to get into this country and work in this country legally. I'm talking about the undocumented workers. The fact we have so many undocumented workers, estimates being from 200,000 to 500,000, is driven by the fact that people who the economy needs aren't getting in by the points system.

Minister, we filed a report from this committee last summer and we wanted a moratorium on undocumented workers until such time as we get our points system rejigged. The committee also recommended that the resources that were being used to get rid of undocumented workers would be redirected at dealing with some of the very serious criminal cases we have in Canada, people who everybody wants to see deported.

This whole issue has been a real problem. It was a priority of the previous minister to get something done and fix it. I am sure there were reports prepared for him by the bureaucracy, and all that seems to have come to a stop.

Mr. Minister, you wrote us a letter, along with Minister Day, in response to our report. I read the letter. You suggest we get public input from across Canada and not just Toronto. I want to let you know that the citizenship and immigration committee in the last number of years has travelled the country twice, and the message we heard was coming from right across Canada; it wasn't just Toronto, but right across Canada. So in regard to whoever writes your letters for you, Minister, I suggest you get an upgrade in that department. But the fact of the matter is that's the input we got from across the country.

In your statement you document very well the need for things like somebody who will work on a ski lift, somebody who will change beds. Those folks are not coming in under our current points system. So my question I put to you, Minister, is why don't you give Canadian employers a break and start a program of regularization for those who have proven themselves and helped build the Canadian economy?

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Thank you very much, Mr. Telegdi, for your question. I know this is an important issue to many members, but I think it's important before we answer that directly to just review the facts.

The fact is that over the last number of years the previous government deported around 100,000 people who were not here legally--around 100,000. Many of those people were undocumented workers of the type you describe. During the 13 years that your government was in power they did not move to regularize these people, and I think that's because previous ministers understood that if you start down that path, you compromise the integrity of the system.

I think there's also concern that if you start down that path, you are putting in jeopardy relationships that we have, for instance, with the United States, where they would be very concerned about a plan to regularize people who have not come through the regular system.

The other point I would make is really a question to you. If this was such a concern for the previous government, why wasn't it part of your election platform to regularize these people? If this was the overriding concern of the previous government and they just didn't have time to do it, why wasn't it part of something you campaigned on? Obviously this does not even carry the judgment of the Liberal Party, so I don't think you can argue with credibility that this is something your party supports.

I would argue that most regular Canadians would say that people should line up. If they want to come into this country, come in by regular means, especially when we have 800,000 people waiting to get here right now in the waiting list trying to come here by regular means.

9:15 a.m.

Liberal

Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON

I'm going to respond to it and pose the question again.

One of the reasons we got into this problem, Minister, was that previous ministers, just like you, unfortunately listened to the bureaucracy of what I would say is a pretty dysfunctional ministry.

The previous minister was committed to doing it, and we were expecting something to come forward on that. The fact of the matter is your officials will have had reports on that, and if I were you I would try to get my hands on some of those.

On the United States being concerned, let me remind you, Minister, George Bush is trying to regularize millions of workers in the United States.

As far as the Liberal Party not being concerned about it, we were very concerned about it. I dare say if there hadn't been an election we would have had legislation to fix this.

I've been on this committee long enough to figure this story out. But the problems you really have--and previous ministers had them as well--come from the department. They're the ones who recommended changing the point system. I was on this committee, and if you look back at the reports and the discussions in this committee, we were very much opposed to it. The problem is that this department is driven too much by the bureaucracy and not enough by the committee or the ministers.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

We will have to allow some time for the minister to respond. However, we are at seven minutes, and I would ask all members to address their remarks through the chair, please.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Obviously the act had to pass through the Liberal cabinet, and it did. That wasn't something the bureaucracy did. I think I state the obvious when I say that the previous act had to pass through the House. It had to have the support of the majority of the House of Commons.

So it's really not credible to say this was something that was driven by the bureaucracy. It had to have the approval of the cabinet and a majority of the members of the House of Commons in order to become a new act.

9:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Madam Faille.

9:15 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would first like to thank the minister for being here today. This committee is doing its best to ensure accountability, but the department is so complex that the committee could easily spend all of its time dealing only with that.

This week the minister announced that there would be an independent review of the appointment process for the IRB, Canada's Immigration and Refugee Board.

Can you tell us why this study was commissioned and what it will involve?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Thank you very much for your question.

This study was prompted by a request from the chair of the IRB, Mr. Fleury. He appeared before the committee a couple of times in the last little while and raised this. He pointed out that it has been two years since the previous guidelines were put into place, and he felt that after a couple of years there should be a study.

We've asked the Public Appointments Commission to have a look at this and focus on timeliness, ensuring that we have the broadest possible cross-section of the Canadian public represented as panellists on the IRB, and of course ensuring that these people are competent and can do the job.

Obviously we don't want the kinds of problems that arose under the previous system, with the fallout we continue to see today. Mr. Bourbonnais was one of the people who was appointed under the previous system, and we all know the problems that created.

So being merit-based is key, but this is really prompted by Mr. Fleury wanting to have a review after two years.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

All right.

On the same subject, we have been receiving an increasing number of complaints from immigrants who are unhappy with the immigration counselling service. And more and more counsellors are complaining about the association.

Governments had previously funded the creation of this association. Since the government was involved in setting it up, have you had any feedback on its performance?

Also, are you aware of the problems experienced by CICIC, the Canadian Information Centre for International Credentials?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

I am familiar with some of these problems. I think it's like anything: there are people who are really looking out for the interests of newcomers, and there are those who are really taking advantage of the fact that people are vulnerable, that they may not know how the system works. I'm concerned about that.

I think one of the most important things we can do is try to educate the public that they don't have to use an immigration consultant. The bottom line, however, is that this is a self-regulating body. It is my hope that consultants will come to understand that if they don't deal with this, their reputation will be so tarnished that they will become their own worst enemies. So they simply need to get this issue in hand, because there are enough complaints coming forward that I think it has to prompt a lot of people to say that they're better off not going to an immigration consultant, but rather to try to get their way through the system themselves with the help of our officials, because of the dangers that are involved in ending up hooking up with someone who is not credible, or is trying to take advantage of a newcomer.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Nevertheless, you know that there are people in crisis here in Canada today. They have had some tough times and are now the subjects of removal orders. I just want to make you aware that life as an immigrant can be extremely miserable. There are some situations that warrant a little compassion.

I would really like someone to take a close look at how that organization works, at least in the short term.

Have I any time left, Mr. Chairman? How many minutes?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Yes, you do.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Let's deal with something else.

Does the department have some type of system for managing costs, and some way to break down the cost for each individual service?

9:20 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

There are some formulas that are in place for determining how much on average it should cost to process an applicant for permanent residence, or various types of applications, if that's what you're asking.

9:20 a.m.

Bloc

Meili Faille Bloc Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC

Yes.

It is because the case management system is based on PAS, SMS, and it was quite expensive.

Many people are worried about cost overruns which could exceed 25 per cent.

How much does the system cost? Will it allow your department to fall in line with Treasury Board directives?

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

First of all, I can assure you that I am concerned about the cost of the global case management system as well. In fact, I talked to the Auditor General about it in the springtime and raised the issue with her, because I was concerned about it. Because it is a major project it also is being monitored by Treasury Board.

One of the reasons for the fact that it costs more than was originally budgeted for is because it is now being asked to do other things. It's being asked to do some things for CBSA, as I recall. Although it is costing more, it's going to do more, and in the end, because it's making computers talk to one another in a way that they don't do now—and some of these systems are 20 years old—we think we'll get more value out of it. But that said, we simply have to keep a very close eye on it and make sure that it doesn't get out of hand, as technology projects sometimes can do.

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Norman Doyle

Thank you, Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Siksay.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you for being here, Minister, and also welcome to Mr. Fadden. I think this is his first meeting as the deputy minister, so welcome.

Minister, does the User Fees Act apply to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Absolutely.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

And has there been a report filed with regard to user fees by the department for the last year?

9:25 a.m.

Conservative

Monte Solberg Conservative Medicine Hat, AB

Yes. It was in the report in the spring.

9:25 a.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Could you tell me a little bit about what was in that report?