Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 10th, 2006

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister. I am new to this committee and learning lots about what goes on in this department. One of the things I've learned already is that behind every file there's a person. Unlike in some other ministries where you're dealing with regulations or rules, there are actually people on the other side of each of these files. That makes this so much more important than just dealing with things--dealing with people.

My first impression of the ministry--and this was not as a committee member but more as an opposition member, an MP in the last Parliament--was that some departments have a good reputation for efficiency, in that you put the paper in and the answer comes out the other side. The Passport Office is reasonably good; I think they've improved a lot. Even Revenue Canada seems to be able to chase you down quickly if you owe them any money. But your department doesn't have such a great reputation in terms of turnover of decisions, in making decisions--and the backlog, of course, there's evidence of that.

My question is, within the department, do you have benchmarks? I appreciate that every file is unique, but are there benchmarks established in terms of how long it ought to take to process a particular type of claim? And another question would be, are those benchmarks being met? Maybe a third question would be, just in general for you yourself and for your deputy, are you satisfied with the operating efficiency of your organization, and if not, what are your plans to improve it?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

I would make a couple of points about that.

There are benchmarks set, believe it or not, and we mean that in a couple of ways. First of all, when people apply, they can actually see on the Internet how long it's likely to take their case to be processed. But there are also benchmarks that we try to meet internally, and we try to get two particular points, for instance, with the decision time. For instance, the IRB is a good example, where the chairman of the IRB sets goals for the amount of time that he wants it to take in a given year to make a decision on a case. So there are benchmarks and we measure ourselves, and others measure us, against them.

The second point I would make is that I've become quite a big fan of the people in the department. I know people are frustrated with how long it takes, but I really think that the people within the department are doing their level best to try to speed things along. There are a number of initiatives under way to try to make that happen. One of them is the global case management system, which is a much maligned system lately, but from what I can see, it is a good way to try to make things much more efficient than they are.

But in the end, I think when we talk about the backlog, for instance, it boils down to a couple of things. One of them is how we ensure that we don't process 250,000 to 260,000 people only to see 300,000 more apply and the backlog get longer, in which case I don't care how good your people are, you're going to have longer waiting times. So we have to figure out what we do about all these people applying. Do we have a different system where, when people apply, you say that we're going to find ways to restrict the number of people who apply in particular classes until such time as the backlog is done? There are other countries that handle it in different ways.

These are some of the issues I'm looking for some guidance on, and if we can get to the point where we decide how we want to handle that, then we can start to shorten the backlog and turn these cases around much more quickly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have one minute, Barry, if you want to use it.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm sure a large number of cases get dealt with expeditiously, and it's the few that are in the system for years that get all the media attention--but maybe not.

In some places I almost wonder if, for any file that's been in the system for five years, there needs to be a flag on it at some point along the way. We've all heard some of these horror stories of very long periods of time. I'm suggesting something like that for the small percentage of people who have been in limbo, so to speak, for more than five, or seven, or eight years. There's some point where somebody should say, if you've been in the system longer than that, we need to pull it out of the stack and actually make a decision on it.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We're looking at all kinds of options, I can assure you. Again, I've talked to a number of people individually here. If people have some ideas on how to deal with this, I would love to hear some suggestions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Barry.

Andrew.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I'm going to try this again. You said there was no consensus. Would you define to me what to you represents consensus as a minister?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

You're talking about the issue of citizenship. On the issue of citizenship, there's a pretty big debate in this country about some of the issues that you've shown a keen interest in, in the past. But there's no doubt, I don't think, in terms of having the public fully behind getting rid of, for instance, the backlog or cutting the right of permanent residence fee, or some of the other things we're talking about--

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

Mr. Chairman, I asked a question about citizenship and consensus. You said there was no consensus on citizenship revocations. Let's talk about that. I don't want to go off on another tangent. I only have five minutes.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, you asked a question about what our priorities are, and I'm saying--

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

No, no, consensus. What represents consensus in terms of citizenship?

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, I already answered it.

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

Mr. Chairman, I can only say that if I ever thought there was a consensus on anything, in the time that I have been in Parliament, it has been on this issue on revocation. The previous government was going to introduce legislation when the House was prematurely defeated, and it was the expectation of an overwhelming number of ethnic groups and Canadians across this country that the Conservative government, having made a promise, would follow through on it.

Let me say to you that the Alliance Party supported it back in May 2000. The Alliance Party has supported this issue continually since then. Your members went on cross-Canada tours. They heard the presentations made by groups all across the country, and in all my years in Parliament, I have never come to anything closer to a virtually unanimous consensus. It wasn't unanimous, but it was virtually unanimous.

It was in your platform in the last election. You come in here, in your first appearance before the committee, and you tell us that the votes of the Conservative members, the Alliance members in the past, didn't represent a consensus. We took the report from this committee into the House of Commons. That received concurrence, which means it was adopted by the House of Commons unanimously. How can you say there's no consensus? By any standard, if that's not consensus for you, I don't think you're going to accomplish anything as a minister that the bureaucrats don't approve for you, because right now you're here representing the bureaucracy. You said “I'm quite a fan of the people in the department”. Well, Mr. Solberg, I am not. I don't think it's the job of the minister to be a fan of the bureaucrats in the department. It is the job of the minister to stand up for what they promise in elections, what they tell Canadians, and not to break faith when you get into office.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Well, I appreciate your frank views on that. One thing that was in our platform was a commitment to bring in legislation on foreign adoptions--

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

That was a Liberal platform from the past. Give me something new that you are going to do.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

--so that's what we're going to do.

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

It's a no-brainer.

[Monte Solberg, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

We made a number of commitments that we've already started to move on.

I know you have a singular interest in this. I understand you feel strongly about it, but there are many issues that affect this portfolio and we can't be held hostage to one issue. So we will deal with the issues where I feel there is a consensus.

We've talked about a number of issues here today, and you're the only one who has really focused in on this. I think the fact that others have raised other issues suggests to me that maybe this isn't the only issue that people are interested in with respect to this department.

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

Well, I'll take the last 30 seconds. I can only say that this is an issue that's important to six million Canadians who were not born in this country and are treated as second class citizens because they do not have the benefits of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

You've got all sorts of members in your caucus who were not born in this country.

We had a situation where the minister in the last Parliament toyed with the idea of possibly removing citizenship from one of the members of the opposition.

Minister, you have broken faith with those six million Canadians and everybody who believes in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I can tell you, you have gotten off to a really miserable start as a minister in your portfolio, and I certainly hope you're going to get some independent advice outside of the department, because it's very clear to me that you don't have the knowledge and you don't have the appreciation for the issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you, Andrew.

Five minutes to the Conservative member.

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

Normally we would go to the Bloc, the NDP--

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

No, I think, Madam Faille, we go back and forth. On the second round, we go Conservative, Liberal; Conservative, Bloc; Conservative, NDP.

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

That's not the procedure we would normally take.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We have a motion to that effect, I believe. I think that's what we agreed upon.

Here we go. By unanimous consent, a motion of Bill Siksay's was agreed to as follows:

That witnesses from an organization be given ten (10) minutes to make their opening statement; and that, at the discretion of the Chair, during the questioning of witnesses, there be allocated seven (7) minutes for the first questioner of each party and that thereafter five (5) minutes be allocated to each subsequent questioner (alternating between Government and Opposition parties) until all Members have had a chance to participate, after which, if time permits a new round will commence.

So we go to Nina.

[Nina Grewal, Conservative, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the minister for being here today.

I was proud to run on a platform for a party that is truly committed to immigration and immigrants. Mr. Minister, people come here to Canada to make a better life and at the same time, contribute to making Canada a better place. So many of my constituents in the riding of Fleetwood—Port Kells came to Canada from India and elsewhere, so they often had to scrape every penny they had to apply. With the reduction of the right of permanent residence fee, Canada is more inviting and welcoming. This is important, especially since there is international competition to attract immigrants.

I would like to know what is being done for those people who have already paid the fees. There is some confusion in my riding, so would you please explain that?