Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

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

I want to return to the issue around the relationship with the provinces in two particular areas that you identified in the report, not necessarily with respect to recommendations, but more as they were outlined in your review in terms of the relationship that the federal government does have.

There are two areas. One is the whole issue surrounding the change we made in legislation with respect to part 6 in the budget, Bill C-50, which changed the point system. It made it more conditional upon Canada's economic need, Canada's need with respect to market forces, and how one would become a permanent resident in Canada through that application.

In that area, you spoke to the issue surrounding how those categories are arrived at--for 2009 there are 38 categories--and the direction we should take with respect to how we determine those categories. I found it quite interesting, because from going through the process and from being involved as a parliamentary secretary, I noticed how much detail we put into the work and the effort of dealing with stakeholders who could advise us, whether they were labour unions, public sector unions, provincial governments, or business. We went through an exhaustive list initially to ensure that the first time we went through this, we'd get it right, and second, that we had set in place a process that would allow us to make sure we were picking the right categories and in fact assisting the provinces, the territories, and the federal government in a way that's going to make it successful over the long term.

You were not critical, but you questioned how that process was going to work. I'm taking issue a little bit because the process I went through in terms of assisting with that and reviewing it seemed to be extremely exhaustive and detailed.

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

As we note in the report, the agreements don't require the provinces to get any kind of agreement or approval beforehand. They can pick their own categories. They simply inform the department.

There is work being done to try to do an overall evaluation, which is probably really critical as to how this system is working. In the agreements there is a requirement for them to provide information to the federal government on the retention of nominees within their jurisdiction, but we note in the report that the information is either absent or incomplete, so the federal government doesn't have a good idea of what is actually happening in the provinces.

As a minimum, we would expect that there would be some exchange, but at the end of the day it's the federal government that has the responsibility for this. How do they know if the provinces are even monitoring their programs well? There needs to be better coordination and better information-sharing. I think the overall evaluation is really important, and you would expect there would be more discussion about the job categories. Maybe they would not necessarily be directly in line, but if they have job categories that are completely different from the 38 federal ones, you would expect some explanation as to why that is.

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

I wonder if perhaps this is an area in which we didn't do a proficient enough job in terms of explaining how the process worked when you were going through it. I take it that we need to do more, but I struggle too, for example, when I use the temporary caregiver categories that you studied. Again, it was the follow-up: do we know if the individual who's received a job is actually being paid properly? Do we know if the individual is being treated properly? Are they doing the work they had agreed to do?

In these two areas anyway, I see some real difficulties for us. As a committee, we actually did a review of the temporary caregiver program, as you are probably aware. In fact, we just passed it again unanimously under concurrence in the House of Commons. There are some very specific recommendations in there that the committee put forward. In fact two recommendations, recommendations 4 and 5, actually speak almost specifically to the issues you brought forward.

The question I have is maybe more of a point than anything else. I understand what you're saying in terms of the ministry needing to reach out further to the provinces or territories, because they in fact have responsibility for it when it gets into the specifics, when it gets into the--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're not giving Ms. Fraser an opportunity to respond.

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

How we are going to deal with that? Even if our best efforts are made, it's sometimes difficult to enter into that type of relationship with the provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Karygiannis.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I have some numbers that came to us from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I'm going to put them to you, and maybe you can tell us how this paradigm is shifting.

In 2004 we let 113,442 skilled workers into Canada. In 2009 we let in 103,736. That's a drop of 10%.

In 2004 we let in 90,668 temporary foreign workers. Here's the kicker, and my colleagues across the way should certainly look at this number: in 2009 we let in 192,500 temporary workers. That's an increase of 210%.

On the one hand you're saying that the inventory levels have decreased by 29%, and yet it's going to take 25 years. In order for the folks to look after their skilled worker needs, we have temporary workers, and these people are coming in for two to four years. They're not going to contribute anything to their lives after they leave, because part of their life is left in Canada. Did you run across something in your calculations that will provide an answer for this?

[Sheila Fraser]

Chair, I'd just like to clarify for everyone that when we mentioned the 29% reduction, that is in the old inventory, in the applications from before February 2008. There's another inventory that's been created, and the overall reduction at the end of March was about 6%. There has been a slight reduction, but overall it's not 29%.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Ms. Fraser, there are fewer skilled people coming in, so that means a lot of people have dropped out. Certainly in my experience in my riding I see a lot of people who have dropped out after waiting for five or six years, and now, with this new inventory that's been established.... This tinkering is not working. What the minister did is certainly not working. You as the auditor can give us an explanation of what needs to be done, or give us some guidance or even a critique.

[Sheila Fraser]

I'll let Mr. Flageole explain, Chair.

[Richard Flageole]

Mr. Chair, that's a point we raise in the report. I think there was a previous question about the impact of the delays. If it takes five years to process a permanent application, and the employer needs the employee--and we talked to a number of employers while we did the audit--employers were using the temporary foreign worker program to bring in people they needed to have on a permanent basis. There's been a very, very significant increase in the number of temporary foreign workers.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

The answer is to increase the number of skilled workers we're allowing into Canada. In this shift of one dropping by 10% and the other increasing by 210%, it has shifted around so that these people who are coming in as temporary foreign workers are being allowed in as skilled workers. Is that the solution? Should we be allowing more people in so that we don't have this knee-jerk reaction that the numbers show?

[Sheila Fraser]

If I could respond, Chair?

The answer, as we say here, is to have a good analysis of labour market needs and to do the evaluation to verify that the programs are actually meeting those needs.

You mention a 10% drop, but when we did the audit, as we note in exhibit 2.5, there was a projection that it was going to go down to 18,000 people being accepted under the federal skilled worker program, which is a significant drop. That's why we say there have been significant shifts in the programs and significant shifts are being projected going forward.

Is that what is needed to meet labour market needs and is this the right direction to being going? We obviously can't comment on that, but we would have expected to see the analysis that would have supported these major shifts and an understanding as to how it was meeting the needs of the labour market. We would also have expected to see an evaluation of the programs.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Ms. Fraser, if you were out in public industry and you were looking at numbers like this when you were doing an audit of a corporation, you'd certainly give it a failing mark, would you not?

[Sheila Fraser]

I wouldn't be too impressed by the planning, the strategic vision, and the potential consequences of all of this, as well as the fact that there is no analysis to justify the changes and the shifts that are occurring and that no one seems to know whether this is the right thing to be doing.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

In other words, there's nobody there who knows what they're doing, including the minister.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

All right.

Monsieur St-Cyr is next.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to continue my questions on the allocation of resources in different missions throughout the world that have to impose a de facto quota on a geographic basis and even, indirectly, on an ethnic basis, since it is grouped by embassy.

I also want to talk about the problems experienced by some embassies where there are management problems. In Nairobi, for example, often files are lost; things have to be sent again, etc.

I have often wondered why the embassies around the world are processing these applications instead of doing it directly here in Canada. For example, under the Quebec program, applications are dealt with on Quebec soil by Quebec public servants over whom we exercise better control.

Have you already looked at the efficiency of this management model which is scattered around the world, with all kinds of individuals of different cultures and different ways of operating, in comparison to what it might be like if it were managed from Canada?

[Sheila Fraser]

Mr. Chair, we did not look at the issue of efficiency, but I would question the ability of individuals here, in Canada, to assess files from foreign countries. How could they have the knowledge they need to properly assess the file? It's important to realize that many files contain fraudulent documents. So, an in-depth knowledge of the situation in each country is essential. I presume that it would be extremely difficult to do that here in Canada.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

Thank you.

In point 8 of your brief, you talked about the follow-up of temporary workers coming here. When the committee looked at this issue, it made a recommendation to require a mandatory visit of temporary foreign workers after three months, not necessarily by government representatives, since this could be a cumbersome duty, but rather by accredited NGOs for that purpose. So, three months after their arrival here, they would be seen in order to ensure that they are working where they are supposed to be working, and to see whether they are benefiting from the right salary conditions, if the employer is complying with legislation, etc. This was what the committee had recommended. We will see whether we should follow up on this.

Do you believe that this could be an interesting way to ensure a follow-up of what is happening once a labour market notice has been issued and a visa has been handed out? In that way we could see whether the system is working properly.

[Sheila Fraser]

We believe that there should in fact be a follow-up. In my opinion the solution proposed by the committee could be quite interesting. I would note however that the department could never follow up 100% of all cases. An analysis would have to be based on risk. Obviously, if employers are well known, and they hire temporary workers every year for various activities, and we know what the company's reputation is, we may not need to go and see each employee, every year. We would need to identify the highest-risk cases and follow up on them.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

We spoke to a number of stakeholders about the possibility of conducting a partial check, but we were told that there was a risk of tension between the employer and employees or a possibility of reprisals. The employer could ask questions and might wonder whether, if we went to see his or her employees, it was because someone had blown the whistle. There is a fear of this.

However, I have thought that a systematic check could eliminate this problem. Perhaps a random check might, at the very least, be a compromise between efficiency and risk...?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

You're out of time, but you can have a quick question. Is it a question or a statement? I don't know what that was.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

I would just like to know whether a random visit could be a compromise between efficiency and the risk of tension.

[Sheila Fraser]

In any risk-based audit, there should be a random component to ensure that the criteria used to identify the most risky cases are valid. There is therefore always a random component, so as to confirm risk management.