Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 26th, 2009

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Why is there such a backlog in New Delhi, Hong Kong, Accra, Nairobi? There seem to be some missions that have much longer wait times than others.

Your report mentioned the great amount of paperwork and a certain inconsistency in decision-making. That's problematic, and it adds to the long backlog. Why do you think that's the case?

[Sheila Fraser]

The backlog related to specific missions is simply a matter of the number of resources that are put there in relation to the number of applications. It's a pretty simple formula.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

It's pretty straightforward: if you want to clear the backlog, put more resources there.

[Sheila Fraser]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I think that's it.

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I have a brief question. I am looking at the criteria on page 43 that were used to conduct the audit—and this could be a general question that might apply to all of our audits. In selecting a foreign worker, do you look at other jurisdictions, like the American jurisdictions?

I understand you're providing a critique of the system. Many of us already knew about some of these issues, although you were much more concise. I was thinking that maybe you don't look at other jurisdictions. Migration in Europe, for example, is a huge topic, with the formation of the 27 states.

So when you're preparing a critique, whether on this subject or any other, do you look at other jurisdictions to see where Canada stands?

[Sheila Fraser]

Generally, we do not. We look to government's own rules, regulations, and policies to see if the organization in question is observing them. Depending on the issue, we may obtain information elsewhere to see how it is done. But looking to other jurisdictions is something we would expect the departments to do. Perhaps through evaluations and studies of other jurisdictions, the departments could learn how to improve their own processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Okay, that's a fair answer. You don't want to reinvent the wheel. The Americans might have a system that's tougher or not as tough, but we're all worried about terrorism, criminals, and other problems that occur worldwide.

Mr. Dykstra.

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

Chair, I have to compliment you on the scope of your question and the leadership you showed by asking it. These are big issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, don't overdo it.

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

Oh, sorry.

I want to pick up on Mr. Bevilacqua's point about what not to bring up and how far to go in pursuing partisanship. I could of course mention that a third of the pages of this report refer to a timeframe between 2000 and 2006, but for our purposes it's important not to mention who the government was back then--

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

That brings back a lot of happy memories.

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

—and the issues we are still burdened with in terms of that. But I'm not going to do that this morning. I want to point out, though, that from an overall perspective, we have given clear direction throughout the report with respect to a vision on foreign credentials, permanent residents for new Canadians, and also temporary workers and the program itself.

While there are specifics that need to be worked on—and I'm certainly not here to say that there aren't always improvements that can be made, there certainly are...but I see comments, such as on page 41, for example, that in terms of its processing of applications in missions overseas, the ministry has successfully introduced a number of initiatives and tools to address some of the inefficiencies that you noted in your 2000 report; and on page 38, where we talk about the whole issue around foreign credentials and that the government is in fact contributing to the recognition of foreign credentials.

I have two overall questions before I ask a couple of specific ones. Obviously you've had a chance to put the report together, and you've also had a chance to review the recommendations the ministry has made within the context of the review. I'm wondering if you could comment with respect to whether they are specific enough. Are the recommendations such that when you do a further review you would point to them to see if successes have been made?

[Sheila Fraser]

Thank you, Chair.

It is correct to say that we have noted improvements in certain areas. Foreign credentials is certainly one area where we see that government is taking action to try to resolve a significant issue for many immigrants in the country. There have been recent developments on the issue of temporary workers as well—which I think is still on the order paper, actually—and we do see some progress being made in that area.

We are pleased that the departments have agreed to the recommendations we made in this audit. Obviously the responses published in the report are fairly short and not terribly specific, which is understandable. We would expect departments to prepare an action plan that would lay out actions to address these recommendations.

When we do our follow-up work...depending on the timelines the department itself establishes for accomplishing the various actions, we will generally re-audit to see if progress has been made. That is becoming standard practice.

We have not as yet seen an action plan from the departments. The committee could certainly encourage them to prepare one and ask for follow-up on a regular basis.

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

I appreciate that. I think that's an excellent recommendation in terms of concrete work the committee could follow through on.

I know it's in the report, but to be clear, could you state the dates that the review actually encompassed?

[Sheila Fraser]

I'll ask Mr. Flageole.

[Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada]

The review covered the period from promulgation of the new act, in 2002. We did an audit in 2000 and looked at what happened between the two, but the focus was for the period between 2002 and the spring of 2009.

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

So the spring of 2009.

The other questions I have relate a little more specifically to the foreign credential program. At the top of page 38 you noted it has contributed to greater awareness of foreign credential issues among stakeholders.

Could you be a bit more specific in terms of what you mean by that? It seems positive, from my perspective, but I didn't note a lot of detail with respect to that sentence in the actual analysis.

[Sheila Fraser]

I'll ask Mr. Flageole.

[Richard Flageole]

So you're referring to paragraph...? Okay, the title.

As the Auditor General mentioned, that whole issue is very important. It's been a longstanding issue. We have seen the government put two programs in place. We have the foreign credential program put in at HRSDC. We had another one very recently in immigration. It was still early, but those programs seem to be working pretty well.

One is a contribution program. There are a lot of players involved in foreign recognition: provinces, territories, professional associations, and employers. So the program is providing contributions to all of those organizations to facilitate the recognition of foreign credentials. The key role the government can do is facilitate since most of this is provincial jurisdiction.

We were quite pleased to see all those new initiatives taking place. I guess the most important one is the development of the pan-Canadian framework that all the provinces and the federal government are working on. The last discussion we had with the department says it's very close to completion. It still has to be signed, I think, by two provinces, but the intention was to announce that in the fall of 2009.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Dykstra.

That concludes the seven-minute round. We're now on to a five-minute round. Mr. Karygiannis has the floor.

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

Thank you for coming. Certainly, your report brings to light a number of issues.

I have about five questions. I'll ask them, and if we run out of time, maybe you can respond in writing.

On number three of your report, you sort of state that the benefits, the risks.... You haven't seen a significant shift. There are workers in the backlog who qualify under the current minister's directives and yet these people are either encouraged to drop out or are not moved up. That is question number one.

In the same paragraph, you state that you saw little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy and that the programs were lacking and had outdated practices. CIC is knee-jerk reacting to problems it has, and it's not using outward and innovative thinking.

On number four of your report, you state that the inventory takes 63 months, which is five years. That's for skilled workers. Yet parental sponsorship applications are even taking up to seven and eight years. We move to have healthy families and have grandparents come over and provide the much needed assistance to the young ones to look after the grandkids while the parents are working. Yet this is taking so—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Karygiannis, can I ask you to slow down? The translators are having difficulty following you. Sorry.

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

Yet they are not providing the assistance that is needed.

On number five, you say it will take eight to 25 years to clear a backlog and that it has been reduced by 29%. However, I am wondering if you have taken into account the people who have dropped and the number of cases that have been shifted from the post that they're supposed to be handled at to other posts. They are taken in order to be negatived or killed or demised. Specifically, I'm talking about stuff that has been taken from Damascus to Warsaw. We see Middle East cases in Warsaw, and they have been getting a lot of negatives.

The last question I have for you is on foreign temporary workers. Since this government took office, foreign workers have doubled while the skilled workers are still at the same level. Yet a lot of the foreign workers who are in Canada are not allowed after three or four years to contribute and make this their home. We send them back. I'm just wondering about the investment they're coming in and making. How is that reflecting...?

How is my time, Mr. Chair?