Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 6th, 2009

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

Overall, there's a 76% acceptance rate for temporary resident visa applications from nationals in the broader Asian region. So the suggestion that this is somehow prejudicial on the basis of geography or ethnicity is manifestly untrue. It would be absurd for anyone to suggest such a thing of our professional public servants: that they are making these decisions on the basis of such factors.

These are case-by-case decisions. People sometimes have a hard time understanding the decisions of visa officers, but they often don't know the particulars of the case in hand.

I intend to come forward with improvements to the regulation of third parties—intermediaries and ghost consultants. I am also seeking improvements to the live-in caregiver program. But we're going to have to agree to disagree on the issue of the right to inherit citizenship ad infinitum. All members of this committee who were in the last Parliament agreed to the legislative modifications now in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, seven minutes.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Quality is something that has endeared you to this committee, so I appreciate that.

Minister, I want to say, and I know the folks on the other side may think I'm saying this subjectively, but over the past year, each time we've asked you to come to this committee you've made the effort to make sure you got here close to the time of the request. I know in the 39th Parliament this wasn't always the case. Some of the ministers weren't able to attend as quickly as requested, but you have. So I want to thank you for being here this morning and for your promptness in coming to committee when asked.

[An hon. member]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I anticipated some of that reaction from the other side of the table. It's too bad, but I guess that's just the way it is.

I know we've talked at great length about refugee reform, specifically with respect to asylum seeking. One of the things that you planned to do over the course of the summer, and leading into the fall, was to meet with as many Canadians as you could about this issue. You also indicated, as did the Prime Minister, some of the changes we might see in the legislation. I wonder if you'd like to comment on a few of those changes.

In addition, the first question that Mr. Bevilacqua asked me when we returned had to do with a timeframe. I don't know whether or not you are able to provide us with a timeframe for this legislation.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Not specifically. As you know, this would involve legislative change, which requires cabinet approval, and I can't presume to make a decision for all of my cabinet colleagues. Let me just say that it's a matter we continue to work on. It's a huge, complex inter-ministerial package of policy that involves not only simple statutory changes but also massive operational changes in a range of ministries. It is not a simple, clean little piece of policy that can be brought forward.

I know this is something that previous governments and previous ministers have been considering for years. I am certainly committed to acting. The Prime Minister has made that commitment public as well, in Mexico, and I will be coming forward with recommended changes; that is my intention.

In terms of the parameters, look, the first objective is to ensure that we have a system that has fundamental procedural fairness, that meets our international legal obligations, and that meets, of course, our obligations under the Charter of Rights, but to do so in a way that renders decisions more quickly, that provides protection to real victims of persecution much more quickly than is currently the case, and that disincentivizes false claims by moving more quickly so that false claimants get a fair shot, get a hearing, and get fair process, but if they're deemed to be bogus refugee claimants, they are removed much more quickly than is currently the case.

I described earlier, in my answer to Mr. Bevilacqua, how the current process can lead to a pathway of several years in Canada for someone who is a false claimant. That is unacceptable. It's an advertisement for people to come and abuse the system.

I should note that while the IRB rejects the majority of applications, I think 56% or 58% in the past year, the IRB has an acceptance rate of claims that is about twice as high as the average among comparable democracies like France and Britain. This suggests that we have an extremely generous system. The concern is that people abroad who want to migrate to Canada for economic reasons see this as an invitation to come in through the back door of the asylum system.

We need to close that back door. We want to keep the front door open for all legitimate asylum claimants, but say to those who try to sneak in through the back door as false claimants, “Get in the immigration queue; you can come to Canada legally if you qualify for one of our immigration programs.”

That's the objective.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you.

I'm going to steer away from this a bit. I know that Ms. Wong has a couple of questions on this topic as well.

The member from Parkdale—High Park has introduced a private member's bill regarding military deserters. Obviously, one of the significant concerns out of this is the whole aspect of the legal obligations that any of these military deserters may face in their countries of origin. Whatever the potential criminal charges they may face, it would present for us, according to the bill that he's introducing, an extreme difficulty in terms of allowing them into the country.

I know there are two sides to every story. One of the responsibilities you have as minister is to provide a perspective on what the potential impact of this private member's bill might be. I wondered if you could do that now.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Sure.

I read a letter by our colleague Mr. Kennedy this morning calling for the right of U.S. and other military deserters or war resisters to make asylum claims in Canada. They have that right. Many of these individuals have made such claims. My understanding is that in 100% of instances where U.S. military deserters have made recent asylum claims before the IRB, those claims have been rejected as being unfounded or not meeting the definition of the status of refugees provided by the UN convention and by Canadian law.

I've been criticized that commenting on that fact is supposedly interfering in the decisions of the IRB. To the contrary, I'm commenting on the decisions the IRB has already made. The decisions they've made, to the best of my knowledge, in 100% of the cases before it on this category of individuals have been negative, leading me to conclude the IRB has decided that these are unfounded false refugee claims. That means these are individuals who have come to Canada illegally. I believe we should apply the law fairly and consistently, not with political prejudice. We should not say we favour this particular group of people politically, for whatever reason, and therefore we will exempt them from the normal and consistent application of immigration laws.

What concerns me about Mr. Kennedy's Bill C-440 in particular is it says that a foreign national in Canada shall be deemed to be in a situation in which humanitarian and compassionate considerations justify the granting.... He wants to amend section 25 of the IRPA to say that individuals who make these kinds of claims shall be exempted by the minister from any legal obligation applicable to that foreign national that would prevent them from being allowed to remain in Canada.

I read that as suggesting that the obligations and requirements under IRPA on inadmissibility would not be applied to such individuals. This would be totally without precedent. It would say one particular category of foreign nationals could avoid the inadmissibility provisions of IRPA, and that includes inadmissibility for reasons of criminality. I'm concerned that this would be an advertisement to people to make claims on the grounds of military service. They would therefore be exempt from the inadmissibility provisions of IRPA, including with respect to criminality. I think that's a very dangerous thing to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Ms. Mendes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, minister.

Mr. Yeates, it's a pleasure to meet you for the first time.

It's also a pleasure to see Ms. Deschênes and Mr. Linklater again.

Minister, I would like to go back to your opening remarks. You said that you could only support adding a new appeals mechanism in the context of a new, streamlined, reformed asylum process.

Even though Mr. Dykstra has already asked this question, when can we hope to see a proposal for reforming that system? We need one very soon because, as you said, there is quite a significant backlog. When can we hope to see that reform?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you, madam. We are working hard to develop a set of reforms on this subject. I can't give you a date, but I can tell you that the department and I are working diligently on asylum system reform. I hope we can have details soon, but I can't give you a date because of the process that involves Cabinet in making these kinds of changes.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Minister.

I'm going to refer to a quote in the Ottawa Sun on October 2 where you say that all those things have been put on indefinite hold because of the constant election threats. I don't see how putting pieces of legislation on hold is going to help us move forward. We need to get legislation through. We need to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. We all agree that the process needs to be streamlined. I totally agree with that; there's no hesitation on our part. But we also agree on this side that there's a great deal of unfairness right now. The fact that there's only one commissioner judging a case is causing enormous harm to the fairness of the process.

Election threats have been put aside for the moment, it seems. Can we hope to see something this fall?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I certainly hope so. My point when I made those remarks was that it is difficult for any minister to plan for mid- to long-term projects when one doesn't know.... As I think everyone would agree, two weeks ago we were facing a very high likelihood of immediate dissolution. I continue to encourage my officials to work on all of these projects diligently. But from a planning point of view, I think we all recognize it can be somewhat destabilizing to have a constant threat of dissolution. That's not a partisan comment; it's just a reality of the minority parliaments in which we live. But we are working diligently on this.

Let me make a comment on the issue of fairness. I agree in principle that it would be preferable to have an appeal division within the IRB in the context of a streamlined system, but I think there is fundamental fairness in the current system. Certainly the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has repeatedly commented on the fairness of Canada's system. Arguably we have a system that is fairer than perhaps the asylum system in any other country of which I'm aware.

Let's not forget that the initial decision at the IRB is not the end of the road. There is access to appeal to the Federal Court on that decision; there's the pre-removal risk assessment; there's the humanitarian and compassionate application on risk--each of which is also open for people to seek leave to appeal to the Federal Court. So there are multiple safeguards in the current system, which is why it takes so long.

[Alexandra Mendes, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

With your permission, minister, I will say that this is where there is a lack of justice or fairness. The fact that we make people wait this long before giving them an answer is really a problem. These are families who have been living here for months or years without knowing what to expect. Some of them are ultimately told, five years after arriving and after they have gone through all the stages, that we're sorry to have to tell them they must go back to their country. During those five years, those people have had the time to work here, to settle and to establish a life. Often they've had time to have children, and those children are Canadian.

Where's the justice when we remove families who have spent five or six years here? That's the major problem.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

That's why, in such cases, people often receive a positive response to their application for permanent residence on humanitarian grounds. It isn't fair that the process takes that much time. It isn't reasonable, and that's why it has to be accelerated. I'm going to propose reforms in that direction. I'm making a commitment to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Ms. Thaï Thi Lac.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Good morning, minister.

Good morning, advisors.

First of all, I'm going to ask you again a question that I put to you in the House when Parliament first resumed.

You watched the program Enquête, which revealed a scheme employed by Quebec consultants to enable thousands of people to circumvent the rules to obtain citizenship. Now that your department is aware of these practices and you've admitted you are as well, minister, I would like to know whether those practices are widespread elsewhere than in Quebec. I'd also like to know what measures will be taken to punish the offenders or to correct these deficiencies.

Don't you think that, if Quebec was in charge of immigration, it would be possible to provide more of a framework for the occupation of consultant so as to prevent unscrupulous people from giving individuals who retain their services incorrect advice that might place them in utterly illegal situations?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you for your question.

Mr. Chairman, I entirely agree: there is a problem of bogus consultants and unscrupulous intermediaries who exploit those seeking citizenship or immigrant status. That's why I have made a commitment to carry out a reform and to increase regulation in this sector.

The problem isn't unique to Canada; it also exists in other countries. Most frauds—that is to say the exploitation of potential immigrants to Canada by intermediaries—take place overseas. That's why I said it was necessary of our international partners, in particular India and China, to do much more to regulate immigration consultants. Personally I want to put pressure on those foreign governments. In this country, I've spoken with Minister Yolande James. She's concerned about the problem in Quebec and is considering the options at the federal level. We're going to reveal certain ideas based partly on the recommendations of this committee.

As regards the fraud related to citizenship and permanent residence, we saw a feature on Radio-Canada two weeks ago. I emphasized that the problem was not unique to the consultant or national from Lebanon. It is not correct to say that this comes from one single country. We see this problem everywhere, in all countries of origin. It is obviously not exclusive to Quebec. It's a problem that exists everywhere and is an enormous concern to us.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I have a lot of questions on this subject, but since I only have five minutes, I'm going to address another subject.

You said that, in the past two and a half months, Mexican nationals had filed 35 asylum claims at ports of entry, whereas there were 1,287 for the preceding two-and-a-half-month period. You failed to give us one essential figure, the total number of entries. I think that's an important figure. If there were 35 claims and 350 entries, and previously there were 1,287 and more than 10,000 entries, we would still be standing around 10%.

You say there were 35 claimants, but how many entries were there in total? You also mentioned that 11% of people filing claims were genuine claimants.

You say that there were 17 claims at ports of entry, whereas there were initially 831. Consequently, only 2% of people were able to file a claim relative to the previous figures. That figure means that a number of individuals were not even able to reach the ports of entry. This measure may have made it so that real refugees will not be able to file claims here since they will no longer be able to get to our ports of entry.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I want to draw to the attention of all members that everybody is exceeding their time. It's fine if you want to do that, but....

Mr. Minister.

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

I can mention that, since visas have been required of Mexican citizens, our mission in Mexico City has approved 90% of visa applications for temporary resident status. That means that only 10% of claims have been rejected and that 90% have been accepted. Between the moment when visas were required and September 25 last, our mission in Mexico issued 29,527 visas to Mexican visitors, which equals several thousands each week.

That means that very few of these people—about 30—filed asylum claims at the ports of entry. That indicates that our officials in Mexico made the right decisions, since the majority of travellers can continue to come to Canada. Those officials previously saw the people who intended to file asylum claims. I believe they've struck a balance between tourists to Canada and asylum claimants.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

I'll make it very brief.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, and thank you to the new staff, the deputy minister, Mr. Yeates, and the acting assistant deputy minister, Mr. Linklater. Thank you for coming.

I have two questions, and I'll make the first question really short. We kept hearing that the refugee claims were taking a long time, that people were staying longer and their families were.... Now, don't forget that it is 10 to 12 years for the initial application. It was the government of 10 to 12 years ago that made that decision, so I think we need to change that. That's number one.

Second, I think that because there's no system right now.... We already have a few systems; that's why it has resulted in having these people and their families stay 10 to 12 years, and these people naturally have families that have settled in.

I want the minister to shed more light on that. Having one more layer of appeal would only worsen the situation. Can you comment further on that?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Again, I emphasize that there are many levels of appeal. I also want to emphasize that it was in 2002 that IRPA was brought into effect by the previous Liberal government. It included within the statute a refugee appeal division, but it was my Liberal predecessors who felt that it would be disastrous to the refugee asylum system if they were to actually implement the appeal division because it would add even more processing time into what is already taking too long. Fundamentally, as I've mentioned, we do have a very fair system with multiple levels of de facto appeal, access to the Federal Court, and full compliance with our charter in international obligations. The addition of an appeal division in that context would not qualitatively improve the fairness of the system, although it's preferable to have an appeal on the merits, in my judgment, within the context of a streamlined system.

If we now pass that bill today and we add another five months onto the process, what does that mean? It means longer processing times, more incentive to come and abuse the system, and that will attract more claimants. It simply continues to allow the system to spiral out of control. We need to get it under control.

[Alice Wong, Conservative, Richmond, BC]

My second question is about foreign credential recognition. It is the single biggest issue that I come across when I talk to the communities. You have professionals who really need that. I know our government has already done a lot in strengthening that and working with other levels of government. However, can you shed light on what additional things the government is planning to do for foreign credential recognition?

[Jason Kenney, Conservative, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, this is a hugely important issue. As all members know, the federal role in this is quite limited because the regulation of professions is a provincial responsibility under the constitutional division of powers. We know each province has created or oversees some 40 licensing bodies in their own jurisdictions. That's over 400 across the country.

That being said, our government has taken meaningful federal leadership to try to provide much better information to newcomers on pathways to credential recognition before they even arrive in Canada. We've done so through our $32 million investment in the foreign credential referral office, and the creation of the Canadian immigration integration project pilot offices abroad, which we will be expanding this year, which in part provide advice to newcomers and to federal skilled workers prior to their landing on how to apply for and obtain credential recognition in their respective professional governing bodies and in the provinces in which they intend to settle.

We've also continued with the foreign credential recognition program in the Ministry of Human Resources and Social Development, which works with professional agencies on streamlining their processes, highlighting best practices, and supporting the work of NGOs in mentorship programs and in apprenticeship programs--for instance, giving foreign-trained medical doctors who have not had their credentials recognized an opportunity to at least get trained as paramedics so they can work in the medical field.

Finally, the Prime Minister committed in the last election and in the Speech from the Throne to establish an agreement with the provinces on a national framework for credential recognition. We were delighted that this occurred in January at the first ministers meeting, and I believe my colleague Minister Finley and I will be making some positive announcements in the near future about the progress we're making on the creation of a national framework for credential recognition so that there is much greater coordination among the 10 provinces.