Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Maybe we can get moving. We're approaching twenty-five minutes to four.

Before we welcome the minister and his deputy here today, and before the minister presents his opening statement, we have one housekeeping detail we should look after.

You have a page before you. Jonathan Faull, the director general of the European Commission's freedom, justice and security department, is coming to Ottawa next week for talks with CIC and Justice counterparts on a number of issues, and he would like to meet with our committee. He requested Thursday afternoon, May 18, but I believe our clerk has set up Wednesday, 5:30 to 6:30 in the afternoon. Would that meet with everyone's approval?

Okay. So we will be meeting with the European Commission's director general—if you could make note of it—on Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

On behalf of our committee, I want to welcome Minister Solberg and his deputy, Janice Charette, to our meeting today. I want to thank you, Minister, for your expediency in responding to our invitation to be here today.

I understand you have an opening statement, so I will defer to you. If you want to begin, please do so.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon to you, and honourable members.

I'm pleased to be appearing here before you today. With me is Janice Charette, the Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.

I very much appreciate your invitation to address the standing committee.

I am proud to have the chance to update this committee on the important work accomplished by our department.

First, I want to tell members that I believe we can work together to solve problems and make the citizenship and immigration system more responsive to the needs of Canadians and those wanting to come here.

I have already met with many members of the committee over the past few months. I have been listening, and I am pleased to discover that for the most part we agree on the challenges that need to be addressed. It is also clear to me that there is considerable commitment, knowledge, and expertise at this table for finding attainable solutions.

I have also been meeting with stakeholders, including many of my provincial counterparts. They are telling me they want to work with our government to create a fair immigration system that protects people in need and encourages those from other countries to contribute to the Canadian economy.

I have also spent hours with members of Parliament from all parties, not necessarily on this committee, by the way. They have given me their impressions of the immigration system based on their own discussions with constituents, and it's clear to me that there are many challenges. The reason I am here today is to ask your help, to ask this committee for its help and guidance in meeting those challenges.

Our government has been in office a little more than 100 days. In that time, I have already observed some issues that have a long history.

There are nine million refugees overseas in need of protection, and Canada must do its part to give them aid and refuge. That is our moral obligation. However, significant resources are spent on claims made within Canada from individuals who do not require refugee protection. Despite the fact that the backlog has been significantly reduced, too often our in-Canada refugee determination process is complex, slow, costly, and inefficient. We must deal with those realities so that we are better able to help those who really need protection. We look forward to hearing your ideas on how this system can be improved for all involved.

The attractiveness of Canada to newcomers has resulted in more immigration applications than we are able to accept. Last year, Parliament set a goal for the government to welcome 220,000 to 245,000 new permanent residents. We exceeded that. We brought in actually more than 260,000 newcomers. Even so, over the last number of years the backlog of people wanting to come to Canada has grown to over 800,000 people.

This runs squarely into another problem facing Canada's immigration system. Canada, particularly its major cities, is an attractive place for those without legal status to stay and work. Without a doubt, they tend to be hardworking people, but the problem remains that they have come to Canada illegally. The previous government removed tens of thousands of these undocumented workers and sent them back to their home countries. That government understood that if there were no consequences to entering Canada illegally, there would be hundreds of thousands more who would attempt to come here illegally. Then there is the issue of fairness. What message would it send if we suddenly gave legal status to people who came here illegally while those who have played by the rules sit in line often for years?

I urge my colleagues to work with me to find ways for those with blue collar skills to come to Canada through legal channels.

We currently have several programs that address labour market challenges for skilled and unskilled workers. The temporary foreign workers program is designed to respond to local and job-specific needs. Last year, over 95,000 qualified foreign workers came to Canada. The temporary foreign workers program also gives workers the chance to boost their language skills and become more familiar with Canadian life. If they later choose to apply for permanent residency, their Canadian experience will improve their chances of meeting the criteria for residency.

Provincial nominee programs marry newcomers with labour market needs. The provinces play an important role--Quebec, of course, selects its own skilled workers--and the provincial nominee program helps other provinces support the immigration of individuals who have the skills and other attributes needed to fill worker shortages. But the program could be used more, and we are prepared to work and help the provinces and territories to do that if they so choose.

But while there are many challenges, we are not standing idle. Our government has already started to make changes and improve the citizenship and immigration system. Canadians and this government value immigrants.

In budget 2006, we reduced the right of permanent residence fee from $975 to $490, effective immediately.

As well, I was happy to recently announce that foreign students in our universities and colleges will be allowed to compete for off-campus jobs on a level playing field with their Canadian peers.

We estimate approximately 100,000 students will benefit from this initiative in all parts of Canada.

The program will increase Canada's attractiveness as a destination for students, and it will allow foreign students to gain valuable Canadian experience that will benefit both them and us.

We've also committed $18 million to hasten the recognition of foreign credentials.

This priority was an important element of our electoral campaign.

Given shared jurisdiction of the provinces and Canada for immigration, we recognize the need to consult with our provincial partners. We've already been doing that.

The government is allocating an additional $307 million to settlement funding over the next two years, over and above investments provided in recent budgets. This funding will give newcomers access to whole networks of people and services that are there to help them succeed. It also allows us not only to deliver on our commitment to fund the Canada-Ontario agreement, but provides additional funding to other provinces and territories outside of Quebec to address integration challenges faced by newcomers.

Prime Minister Harper had committed to address this file. And he has done so.

Our government made an election commitment to support Canadian parents who adopt foreign-born children by introducing legislation that will extend citizenship to these children. I am confident we will be able to deliver on that pledge.

We don't have all the answers. We do, however, believe that the answers must reflect fairness and compassion for individuals while protecting the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system. We need to find a balance. I look forward to working with members of the standing committee to find the right balance.

Finally, I'll say, despite rumours to the contrary, I am not a complete stranger to the subject of immigration and the immigration system. I live in Brooks, Alberta, home to 1,200 Sudanese refugees, which is nearly 10% of the community's total population. There are 36 languages spoken on the floor of the local meat packing plant. I also know how grateful these newcomers are to have found a new home in the greatest country in the world.

Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Minister.

We will now go to our questioning. As agreed, each party has seven minutes.

We will begin with the Honourable Albina Guarnieri.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll be sharing my time with my colleagues.

Thank you, Minister, for meeting with the committee, and belated congratulations on your appointment, or should I say your “lended” status as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?

Minister, in the last few weeks we have focused attention on undocumented workers and the difficult human situations that obviously develop when processes are allowed to drag on for years and years, disrupting lives. Regardless of how you're dealing with the issue surrounding those who are already facing deportation, I believe it's beyond dispute that shortening the refugee determination process would not only ultimately save the government money, but would spare a lot of families from a great deal of misery.

Could you please tell the committee when we will see a significant investment in resources to dramatically shorten the refugee determination timeline? And tell us why we don't see it in the current budget plan. You highlighted it as a significant problem in your delivery today. There's a big sin of omission in the budget plan that we've seen.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you very much for your question. It is an important issue, and I would simply say that we did lay out some priorities during the election campaign. We've moved in our first budget to put an emphasis on addressing some of those, and I've talked about those. But that doesn't mean we don't want to find a way to address some of these other issues. Obviously, you can't do everything at once. But I think the most important thing, before you allocate money, is to have a plan, because if you don't have a plan, allocating money will just lead to waste. We don't want to do that.

I've talked to a number of you individually about this issue, and I would welcome your ideas with respect to this. I think your analysis is correct, that if we were able to provide people with due process and also have a system that didn't take so long, then we would probably have fewer cases where people spend years getting connections to the local community and it's that much more heart-wrenching when they are removed from the country.

So I am interested in hearing ideas from you and members of the committee on that issue.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

We hope you'll consider being focused on the future, and I know that the committee is really ready to be positive and certainly forward-looking in our initiatives.

Minister, one area that has been identified as a challenge is your department's priorities relative to the Canada Border Services Agency, and more particularly, how the priorities of Citizenship and Immigration Canada are reflected in border security funding. For instance, your department's expenditures are clearly affected by any initiative that border security may have to adopt, such as reducing the use of forged passports or preventing people from getting off planes in Toronto, having destroyed the documents they used to travel.

I wonder if you could tell us if there are any initiatives that benefit the objectives of your department that are specifically funded through Canada Border Services, or any other departments, for that matter.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at. As you know, one issue that's been in the news a little bit lately is the biometrics issue, which deals with using biometrics to help us with the problem of identifying fraudulent documents. That's an initiative we're funding, and there's a pilot project that will begin in the fall. The purpose of it, really, is to deal with that problem of fraudulent documents, which is a real curse, frankly, for the department, and we're hoping to get out ahead of it.

But I'm not certain if that's what you're getting at. Is there some other initiative you're thinking of?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

For projects such as you've mentioned, for instance, what is the amount of the funding? Is it substantial funding?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Do you mean for the biometrics?

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Yes.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It's $3.5 million.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

So is this money that is already allocated, or is this new money?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It is money that was already allocated, as I recall.

[Albina Guarnieri, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Andrew.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Very quickly, when I look through your work plan, you don't have anything mentioning a revision of the Citizenship Act. This committee issued three reports in the last couple of years specifically detailing citizenship, and not just the one about adoptions. Can you tell us what your plans are for producing citizenship legislation in line with what the committee recommended?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I appreciate all the work you've done on this. I know it's an important issue for you and for other members of the committee.

The way I look at it is this. We do want to move forward with some initiatives on citizenship, and I mentioned the adoption issue, but there are other initiatives that are important, as well. So we're proposing to do something on the adoption issue. We're proposing to try to deal with some of the other issues I have raised, but I would be telling you a great lie if I said that we felt we could move forward and make a bunch of amendments to the Citizenship Act at this time. There are issues that we think are even more pressing than that, quite frankly.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Minister, it was part of your platform promise in the last election, particularly as it dealt with citizenship revocation. You had a report that was concurred with by the House, and that went through this committee, that gave very specific instructions as to what the department is to do.

Minister, I've been on this committee since 1998. I have seen six ministers--you're the sixth minister here--and I have come to appreciate that roadblocks in the bureaucracy can certainly stop political will. So Minister, I hope you will keep to the campaign promise you made during the campaign, and that your party made during the campaign, and you will bring in a Citizenship Act. This committee has spent a great deal of time on it.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, I would just point out to you that we made a few commitments in the election campaign, and we want to address them in the order that we choose. We are mindful that there are some things for which there's more consensus, and there are others where the issues are more difficult. And whether this committee itself dealt with the issue or whether you feel there is a consensus on this committee, I can tell you that the Citizenship Act proposals are very divisive. There is no consensus across the country on them. We know that.

I'm interested in hearing from you on these issues, but I'm telling you, quite frankly, that we are going to put a greater emphasis on some of the other changes I've talked about, as opposed to citizenship.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you. That's about eight and a half minutes, but that's okay.

We'll move on to the Bloc, with Madam Faille.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Good afternoon, Minister. It's a pleasure to see you again.

The tone of your speech is somewhat lighter than what we had become accustomed to with Mr. Volpe. We met with him on a number of occasions and I have to say that you seem to have the will to resolve issues. However, as you most likely know, numerous delays are a fact of life.

I don't see any mention here of the family reunification program. I believe you received several reports on this program component over the weekend. Moreover, we've asked many questions of you this week about family reunification. As you can well understand, it's a major problem. The committee has received many submissions and heard from many witnesses. It will likely take you several hours to pour over all of this material.

I'd like to know how you intend to address the issue of family reunification.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, yes, I discovered paragraph 117(9)(d) of the Immigration Act regulations, and I've also learned a little bit about this issue. I guess I would note that while I'm extraordinarily sympathetic to the need to find ways to reunite families, the problem is that we're talking about people who in the first instance didn't tell the truth about their family situations. Now the people who got to Canada under, in a way, false pretenses are hoping to be reunited with their families. But the rules are quite clear: if you misrepresent your family situation, there is a lifetime ban in terms of reuniting that family. I also know that this has been upheld by the courts.

All of that said, I understand how awful it is for people in that situation. I'm not averse to hearing from people and hearing some arguments on this issue, but in the end, the balance we always have to strike is the balance between compassion and fairness and ensuring that the integrity of the system is respected. If we allow people to not tell the truth about their situation, with impunity, then I would say that all of a sudden you're going to have a problem. People will take advantage of that.

So you always have this balance, and it's not a simple thing to find exactly where that balance is.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

I wasn't necessarily talking about paragraph 117(9)(d). Family reunification raises a host of problems, including DNA testing and costly fees. We're talking primarily about reuniting families of people who have been granted refugee status here in Canada. We have agreed to grant them protection, but some people wait a very long time to be reunited with family members. For example, a case was brought to my attention where a person had been waiting seven years. In another case, the person had been waiting nine years. This week, Minister, I told you the story of a woman who has been waiting six and a half years to be reunited with her child. I'd like to know where you stand on these delays.

Also, for the benefit of committee members, I just want to say that during the last session, the department sent us a report on the cases backlogged at offices abroad. Could the department forward a similar report to committee members to give us an idea of how many cases have yet to be processed and of how many the department expects to process this year? The report is updated monthly and we'd appreciate getting a copy of it on a regular basis. The processing capacity of offices abroad seems to be a serious problem. The offices in Vegreville and Missassauga also seem to be having problems processing applications. The delays are very lengthy.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

First of all, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your question. I know this is a serious problem.

As I understand it, there is a combination of issues that make it difficult. One, of course, is just the problem we have with the backlog, which is very long and growing. Second, there are difficulties in some cases in determining whether or not the children we're talking about are necessarily the biological children--and you've mentioned DNA testing.

I know the fees that are levied are difficult. As you know, we've already started to lower the right of permanent residence fee. I understand the concern for people who aren't necessarily in a position to afford to pay those kinds of fees. I can assure you that one of the things I would love to do is be able to start to lower fees for people who have the least means to pay them.

I think there are a number of factors. One of the easiest to resolve is the backlog, but it requires a bit of a plan and some resources to do that. Some of the other problems are less easy to address because they have to do with working with systems that are in place in other countries, where sometimes it's difficult to identify whether or not children are actually the children of the refugees making the claims.

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Do I have any time remaining?