Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2006

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have one minute and four seconds. We can allow you a few seconds' grace on that, I'm sure.

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

We often hear about how refugees abuse the system or about how the refugees who arrive in this country are not legitimate refugees. To my way of thinking, making generalizations about this group of people does a disservice to various other groups already in the country. Previous ministers tended to have this attitude. However, beyond the numbers, we have to appreciate that we are dealing with individual cases, with people. Would you be open to the idea of creating an appeals section to handle these cases? What kinds of changes would you like to see? I remind you that the legislation has been passed and enacted, but the department has postponed the implementation of this particular provision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We'll go to the minister for a brief answer.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

First of all, when people are genuine United Nations refugees, we get them here as quickly as we can. I know government standards for quickness aren't the same as you might expect elsewhere, but we're working on that.

With respect to people who come to Canada and claim refugee status, the truth is that many are determined not to be refugees. In fact, I think something like 52% of privately sponsored refugee claimants turn out to not meet the definition of UN refugee. So when we tie up resources dealing with that, it means we don't have resources to help legitimate refugees and others who need assistance.

With respect to the RAD, the only thing I would say is that I understand the argument for it. I also know that we have a system today where it sometimes takes years and years before a final judgment is rendered as to whether or not somebody meets the definition of refugee. We also know that compared to other systems it's generally accepted that it's a very fair system. But I do understand the arguments for the RAD. They don't fall on deaf ears. I think it's part of a larger discussion that goes to something that Albina Guarnieri asked before, about what we can do to make the system a little bit more streamlined.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Madam Faille.

Bill.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Welcome, Minister. I know the first appearance before the committee must always be an interesting moment in one's life, so hopefully we'll have a decent time this afternoon.

It's always fascinating to see the first statement of a new minister in a new government on an important area, especially when there's been a change in government. I'm intrigued by the general statement you make at the bottom of page 2 about creating a fair immigration system. The two facets of that you mention are protecting people in need and encouraging people to contribute to the Canadian economy.

That's a very different mantra from what we've heard in years gone by, where it would have gone on to at least talk about family reunification and nation-building. So I'm struck by the absence of any mention of family reunification in that first general statement about what the immigration system should be about.

Is that a significant thing that I'm noticing?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I think if you look at the speeches I've given up until now as minister, you'll find that we do talk about family reunification as well. But what I intended to do, frankly, with this statement is keep it as short as I could so that we could have a bit more of a discussion in here.

My view with respect to immigrants is that it's easy to talk about the economic class and the family class, but in reality, of course, people who are in the family class, especially in a hot economy, are all part of the economic class. And people in the economic class, of course, make a contribution as members of the family.

I think it is too simplistic to say that you're one or the other. I think all people who come have the potential to make extraordinarily valuable contributions, not just economically but in every way, whether socially or culturally or within their families. That's why I want to see the system working better. I think we have to have immigration as an even stronger part of our overall strategy as a country moving forward, not just economically but because, I think, it makes our country richer and more interesting.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

That being said, does that mean you question the 60-40 split that's been a feature of determining the numbers and the various categories? Are you anticipating changing that?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

No, we're not anticipating changing that. The point I'm trying to make is that even the people who come in the family class are making big economic contributions today. And we need a lot of people who don't fit the point system in terms of being economic immigrants, people who have blue collar skills or different types of skills other than those that are needed to meet the criteria of the point system today. Those people are very valuable. We welcome them. In fact, I think the mix today is something like 56-44. So you probably have a lot more people coming under the family class than was originally intended. I don't have a problem with that. I think we need people like that not only economically but also culturally and socially. Certainly families need them.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Minister, is your government's immigration target still 1% of the population?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I would love to see the numbers stay around where they are right now. Until we can get some fixes in the system, or until we identify how we want to go forward, we have.... I think I've said this to you before: I'm concerned about the backlog. I think that's an issue we need to deal with. I would love to have a solid plan in place before we start talking about any change in the numbers. And any change in the numbers, by the way, should probably happen in consultation with the provinces, which bear, obviously, a big responsibility in terms of settling people.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Minister, yesterday on the Hill there were a number of folks visiting us who were raising the question of the countries to which we don't deport people, because even when there are failed refugee claimants, for instance, we've determined that it's not safe, and for their own protection they're allowed to remain in Canada. We heard the stories of these people who can't participate fully in life in Canada. There are some really dramatic restrictions on their ability to do that. Yet they're in this situation of limbo, of having to put their lives on hold indefinitely.

The Canadian Council for Refugees and their coalition partners have suggested that there should be a program in place whereby after three years these folks should be allowed to apply for permanent residence in Canada.

Yesterday in question period, you suggested that they had access to the H and C process. But again, a lot of these folks say that's a very expensive process, at $550 at least for an application and then any advice on top of that. And most of them are working only minimum-wage jobs. Because of the circumstances they're in, they're imposed on them. Also, that's a long process in itself. Often it will take them three years, and then they're told their applications in H and C aren't priorities because they're safe in Canada at the moment.

How do you respond to the need for a three-year program?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

First of all, I have tremendous sympathy for these people. They are really and truly in a very difficult situation. Obviously they can't be sent back to these countries. There's a moratorium on sending them back because of the dangerous situations in those countries. So I have great sympathy for their situation.

The good thing is that about 85% of them, I've discovered, who apply under H and C are accepted, which is good. But there are still 15% who don't make it.

I committed to the people we met with from the Canadian Council for Refugees that we would have a look at this. I'd like to continue the discussion with them and see if there are ways to possibly make their situation a little easier while they're here, and certainly consider some of these options they've talked about. But it's a little early to make any commitments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have time for one more, Bill, then we'll move to government members. Go ahead.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Minister, the Safe Third Country Agreement has dramatically cut down the number of refugees who make claims at our land borders. I think the figure is around 51%. Yet in your document, you talk about the significant resources that are spent on the refugee system. Doesn't that reduction of claims mean that the system is saving a lot of money and in fact there is more money in the refugee side of things at the moment because of that? I know we're waiting to hear the monitoring report on the safe third country, but isn't that the situation, that there is in fact more money on that side of the ledger?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We still have about 20,000 people in the backlog who are applying under the refugee class, so I wouldn't say that there's a saving. Mr. Fleury will be before you, I think in May, to talk a bit more about that. The ideal thing, of course, is to get rid of the backlog, because even the backlog itself costs lots of money to administer.

It's true that the number of refugee claims from people passing through the United States has gone down quite dramatically, as I understand it, and we think that's a good thing. I think it would be a stretch to say there are any savings yet because of the length of the backlog.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Bill.

We'll move now to the government members. Ed.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

I have a brief general question, then I'll share the rest of my time with my colleagues.

Mr. Minister, I have a general question on the provincial nominee program. It seems to vary from province to province, with some provinces utilizing it more than others. Do you see a role for that program in the immigration picture in a general way?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

The provincial nominee program is a great program. I think the best example of how it works is in Manitoba, although I know, Ed, you have a sort of proprietary interest in how well it's working in Saskatchewan. But I think this is something that the provinces could utilize more, and we'd love to be helpful in making that happen.

In Manitoba, they bring in 4,600 people a year under the program. I think they have three classes: one is economic, one is family, and one is community. As far as I can tell, it's working very well to help Manitoba not only to bring people into their province but to bring them in for specific purposes, and in ways that will allow them to integrate into communities. Other provinces don't use it nearly as much. Alberta, I think, brought in 611 last year, and I think B.C. is ramping theirs up a bit. Of course, in Ontario we're still at the pilot project stage.

So I hope that as time goes on they'll play a more active role, because I think the best people to identify their needs are the provinces themselves.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Rahim.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.

I'd also like to officially congratulate you. After all the years we served in opposition together, I think it's a well-deserved promotion for you to become a minister. I do recall, even during the time we served in opposition, your speaking about immigration issues, particularly the example in your riding of the Sudanese refugees. I know how passionately you spoke about their meat processing qualities, especially during the BSE crisis. So I know you are well aware of some of the challenges.

In any case, I wanted to focus on a couple of questions in the time I have. One is a general one, and I think it's something you already addressed briefly in your remarks, about the Canadian agency for assessment of foreign credentials. This is an issue that I think is very topical for all of us who have studied this in depth in the last session of Parliament.

I understand in the budget there's $18 million allocated for two years for this. Can you explain how this is going to work and how it's going to coordinate with the provinces to effectively achieve something? As you know, there hasn't been much achieved in this particular area, and we'd like to actually see some results, so maybe you can talk about how that's going to work.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

It's always a cliché to say that we have to work in partnership, but it really is true. I think in this case it's very true, in immigration, because the federal government and the provinces haven't actually been working together for a long time on this. It's only recently that the provinces have become involved—with the exception of Quebec, of course—so there isn't really a lot of baggage there. I think there is an opportunity to work together on this.

The other day in Quebec City I met with Lise Thériault, the Minister for Immigration and Cultural Communities for Quebec. They've done extraordinary things with their foreign credentials recognition in that province. I would love to work with success stories like what they've done thus far in Quebec, with professional bodies who have been more aggressive than others in recognizing credentials from other countries, and also with business, to urge them to push professional bodies and encourage them to get professional bodies on side. When we get more of these credentials recognized, rather obviously it's good for everyone.

The best example is in health care, where we have a big demand for health care professionals of all kinds, doctors and nurses in particular, but on the other hand don't necessarily have official recognition of a lot of medical credentials earned offshore. I think more can be done. That is the first thing they tackled in Quebec, and from what I gather they have had some early success. It's not, strictly speaking, a federal jurisdiction—well, it's not a federal jurisdiction—but we think we can play a leadership role and help coordinate with the provinces and the professional bodies to get some things done.

[Rahim Jaffer, Conservative, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I look forward to that, especially the leadership, because I think it was missing before. I hope we can achieve some concrete results. I appreciate that update.

I want to follow up a little on what my colleague Ed was asking about. You mentioned the points system in general sometimes not working well to attract some of the people we need, especially as economies keep expanding, as in Alberta where we have huge labour shortages. It's not just in areas of the natural resource sector, or building and construction, but even in service industries. There are people struggling, and we're finding that Canadians aren't willing to take some of those jobs. We've seen temporary worker programs, in some cases, work towards filling some needs.

I know there have been some sector-specific initiatives: seasonal agricultural work programs, and there's a recent agreement, I believe, for the oil sands. Is there something that can be done—and maybe the provincial nominee program is where we should look at this—to target some of these sectors, such as the service sector industry or others where we have a labour shortage, or should we just focus on the way the system works in processing applications? What would you suggest this committee should be looking at?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I'm a big fan of the provincial nominee program, but it would be difficult in a quick way for provinces to ramp up to the degree they might need to in order to fill shortages in the service sector, for instance. Perhaps more could be done through the temporary foreign workers program, and that requires both our department and the Department of Human Resources and Social Development Canada to work together, because they have to provide the labour market opinions to ensure that we're not displacing Canadian workers. That's always the trick, because obviously there are concerns about removing Canadians who are unemployed, for instance, from the chance to get those jobs first.

In fact, this week I met with a number of people from various unions from across the country, but certainly in Alberta, who seemed to understand or agree that there's a need to deal with the labour shortage through temporary foreign workers, but who were also asking us to be cautious about overutilizing it, because we don't want to displace Canadians workers.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

That completes our seven-minute round. We'll go to the five-minute rounds and alternate back and forth. To begin our five-minute round, we'll go to government members.

Barry.