Evidence of meeting #2 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was million.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Mark Watters  Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Claudette Deschênes  Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

3:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Order.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 2, on Tuesday, March 16, 2010.

The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Orders 81(4) and 81(5). We have main estimates 2010-2011, votes 1, 5, and 10 under Citizenship and Immigration, and supplementary estimates (C) 2009-2010, votes 1c and 5c under Citizenship and Immigration. They were referred to the committee on Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

We have today as our guest the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. He has a number of his staff with him; I will let him introduce them.

Minister Kenney, it's a pleasure to have you here today to talk about the estimates. As you know, you have the floor for about 10 minutes.

3:30 p.m.

Calgary Southeast Alberta

Conservative

Jason Kenney ConservativeMinister of Citizenship

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First, I would like to welcome my colleague Mr. Denis Coderre and Ms. DeBellefeuille.

Mr. Coderre and I have known each other for a long time. He is new to the world of immigration, but I still think he will have a great deal to contribute.

I would also like to acknowledge the presence of my deputy minister,

Neil Yeates; chief financial officer Mark Watters; assistant deputy minister for operations Claudette Deschênes; and associate ADM Dawn Edlund.

Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I am pleased today to place before the committee our department's main estimates for the fiscal year 2010-2011 and supplementary estimates (C) for fiscal year 2009-2010.

The total main estimates for 2010-2011 are $1,532 million, an increase of $174.2 million from the previous fiscal year. This change is primarily due to increased funding approved to support settlement services across Canada, including Quebec--that's nearly $96 million--and implement a temporary resident visa for Mexico, $48.4 million. I should mention of course that we also generate revenues from visa fees that go to the general revenue fund. We're also modernizing the immigration system and managing the backlog with $21.9 million and we are reflecting the transfer of the multiculturalism portfolio from Heritage to CIC.

With respect to supplementary estimates (C), the most significant items included address our actions to respond to the earthquake in Haiti--that's $4.8 million, about which I will speak more shortly--and reallocation of resources to support additional pressures on the interim federal health program. That's in part due to our additional coverage for Haitian nationals in Canada. We're also transferring funds to DFAIT for shared costs related to the renovation of our mission in Tunis and transferring funds to the Department of Justice to assist with pressures on the immigration and refugee legal aid envelope.

I would like to answer your questions regarding these and other funding matters, Mr. Chairman.

By helping immigrants find meaningful employment and successfully integrate into Canadian society, we are committed to using immigration to strengthen the economy and build the future of Canada. This future also depends on a successful refugee asylum system. As many of you know, Canada has been a leader in the international challenge to help refugees. Since 1947, more than a million people have been granted protection by Canada, and in fact Canada receives one of every 10 resettled refugees globally each year. We welcomed over 33,000 people who came to Canada seeking asylum in 2009 following an increase of 60% between 2006 and 2008. In fact, our projections were for substantial increase in 2009. That was only precluded by the difficult but necessary decision with respect to TRVs for Mexico and the Czech Republic.

In spite of finalizing over 26,000 claims last year at the IRB, there is still a backlog of approximately 60,000 claims. The good news, though, is it's now beginning to track down a little bit.

I'd like to commend the IRB for, even before they had a full complement of members, managing to perform above their budgeted target of 25,000 finalizations per year.

We have addressed the growing backlog in our refugee protection system with appointments to the IRB. I have personally made 61 appointments and 28 reappointments, so that the Refugee Protection Division of the Board is close to its full complement. It is currently at 96%, and will be increasing shortly.

But still, the number of refugee claims made in Canada each year exceeds our ability to keep pace. So it now takes about 18 months for refugee claimants to have their claims decided and years for failed claimants who pursue the multiple avenues of stays and appeals available to them.

This is unacceptable. Those who need protection should not have to wait for over a year to be processed.

We also can't continue with what I have called a two-tier immigration system, one for legal immigrants who patiently wait in line to come to Canada through our fair system and another for those who make manifestly false asylum claims in seeking to come to Canada through the back door of our refugee system.

That many of our asylum claimants do not need Canada's protection is demonstrated by the fact that 58% of claims are rejected by the IRB. More are abandoned or withdrawn before they get to the IRB. For example, of the roughly 2,500 claims made by nationals or citizens of Hungary last year, 100% were either withdrawn, abandoned, or rejected, and out of the 2,500 only three claims were finalized with approval by the IRB.

There are organizations that offer to sell advice on how to use Canada's asylum system as an easy way to get into the country and to remain here for years. I recently saw one that offered a service to help people travelling here as tourists to make manifestly false claims. They actually offered to construct a motive for such a claim.

We need balanced and fair reforms to our refugee system.

To achieve this, we are looking at ways to improve the system, to enable both faster decisions and faster removals of failed claimants, as well as ways to increase the support we give refugees to start new lives in Canada. This would help those who truly need our protection and deter applications from those who try to misuse our asylum system. And it would aim to do so at less cost to taxpayers.

Mr. Chairman, on another matter, the government is committed to fighting immigration fraud.

We will work to ensure fairness and the integrity of our system for obtaining temporary and permanent residence in Canada as well as citizenship. As the Speech from the Throne said, we will work to protect would-be immigrants by taking steps to shut down unscrupulous and unlicensed immigration consultants. We plan to proceed with legislation this spring to impose tougher penalties on people who break our laws or provide fraudulent advice seeking to exploit applicants for immigration to Canada. By regulating consultants in this country, we will crack down on “ghost” consultants as well as others who advise immigrants to make false declarations.

I believe, Mr. Chairman, that we must also guard against fraud by those seeking to violate our very generous citizenship laws.

While I obviously can't discuss individual cases, I expect committee members are likely aware of media reports regarding investigations of fraud. For example, Radio-Canada did one on a fraud network in Montreal; they identified that 1,400 people appeared to have used immigration consultants to set up fictitious lives in Canada as false evidence of permanent residency in their citizenship applications. Another case is under investigation in Mississauga. It involves as many as 300 people who claim to be living at the same address, if you can believe it. They are claiming to be legitimate permanent residents in Canada.

Mr. Chairman, we need to acknowledge that the problem is out there and known. The law is clear: citizenship can be revoked if a person commits fraud, or conceals material circumstances when they apply for citizenship or permanent resident status.

To respond to the recent earthquake in Haiti, staff at Citizenship and Immigration worked to give priority to new and existing sponsorship applications from Canadian citizens and permanent residents who have close family members in Haiti. As the Canadian Embassy sustained substantial damage and CIC's services were affected, an office in Santo Domingo was set up and assigned the caseload normally processed by Port-au-Prince, particularly for temporary visa applications.

As well, CIC set up a unit in Canada to provide support to the visa office in Port-au-Prince. Over 1,500 temporary resident visas have been issued, the majority of which were to people accompanying Canadian citizens being evacuated from Haiti.

My time is running short, Mr. Chairman. I would just very briefly say that we have recently announced additional investments to accelerate the integration of newcomers through the foreign credential referral office, including an extension and enlargement of our overseas immigration integration project. We have expanded it to a number of other countries by opening an office and making free seminars available to selected permanent residents in London, England, to serve the Gulf States as well as Scandinavia. We're now providing roughly two-thirds of our permanent resident intake with access to these free seminars.

Of course, in November Minister Finley and I, along with the provinces, announced the pan-Canadian framework for the assessment and recognition of foreign qualifications, which is part of the $50 million investment in Canada's economic action plan.

I look forward to taking questions on that issue or on any others of interest to committee members.

Thank you for your time, Mr. Chairman.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. We will have questions from each of the caucuses.

We are short today. We will end this meeting at 4:30 p.m. I'm going to ask for unanimous consent that each caucus be given 10 minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. Bevilacqua, you have 10 minutes—or at least your caucus does.

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Maurizio Bevilacqua Liberal Vaughan, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for your presentation. I want to begin my comments by saying that while it's very important that we review the estimates, my major concern as critic of the Liberal Party is that, in fact, new Canadians are falling behind. They're over-represented in the poverty rates, the unemployment rate, and the gender employment rates of this country, and I question the government response to this reality.

I want to cite an editorial comment made recently:

Canada's future prosperity is tied to the economic success of its immigrants. Perennial wage gaps indicate success for immigrants is not a given. It is regrettable that amidst the ongoing stimulus spending, investments to ensure immigrants integrate as speedily and successfully into Canada's economy as possible are not being made.

I tend to agree with that assessment. That is the paramount issue of immigration in Canada. We welcome people, but their expectations are not being met, not because of what they're not willing to do but rather because the system is not allowing them the chance they rightly deserve. That's the macro-picture, Minister, that I want to paint to you.

Secondly, I have some very specific questions in reference to the main estimates. The main estimates indicate that Citizenship and Immigration net spending increases of $175.2 million are due in part to $80 million in funding related to the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement. Is that $80 million new money that was not originally contemplated as part of the $920 million over five years under the agreement, or is that unspent money from previous years? Could you please provide the committee with an accounting of the money that has flowed under the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement as of March 1, 2010, how much money actually flowed in each year?

As you know, this week the citizenship guide comes into effect. There are some questions, obviously, related to that guide, but I do want to give you, Minister, the opportunity to answer just some very straightforward questions related to the guide. That is, did you or anyone in your ministerial office request the removal of references to gay rights or same-sex marriage from the drafts of the citizenship guide? At any time during the process, did public officials suggest that references to gay rights or same-sex marriage be incorporated back into the final product, and if so, what was your office's justification for keeping them out of the guide? Given that the guide is now being used, can we expect that these issues will be reincorporated into the guide, and if so, when?

Thank you.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Thank you. There are a lot of questions there.

Mr. Bevilacqua, first of all, I share your preoccupation with the diminished economic outcomes that are experienced by many newcomers to Canada versus 20 years ago, for example. The overall focus of the government's approach to immigration is to improve economic outcomes for newcomers so that immigration works for them and for Canada. That has been the guiding principle in everything we've done.

I read the same editorial that you did. I'm actually sending a letter to correct my friends at the Globe and Mail because they missed the fact that budget 2010 continues the economic action plan's investment of $50 million in additional funds for the implementation of the agreement between the premiers and the Prime Minister, in January 2009, to accelerate and streamline the process of foreign credential recognition. And that $50 million, which we're continuing to invest, is what led to the very important development last November of the pan-Canadian framework.

The budget also includes the continuation of our substantial increase in settlement funding, Mr. Bevilacqua. In 2005-06, this ministry spent $188 million on settlement funding and this year, in 2010-11, it will be $652 million. So this government has more than tripled the investment in settlement services, including language programs for newcomers.

But may I add, Mr. Bevilacqua, that an index of success isn't just spending more, it's better outcomes. I've asked this committee on several occasions to consider studying best practices in settlement programming and it never seems to get picked up. Perhaps it's because it doesn't generate news stories, but I think it's absolutely essential. The taxpayers are spending three to four times more on settlement programming—yes, in Ontario, under COIA, and across the country—than any government did before. Yet we're concerned that we're not seeing a proportionate increase in enrollment in these programs or in outcomes. I've alluded before to the fact that only a quarter of qualified permanent residents are enrolling in the free language classes that we're now offering, which are far more expansive than they've ever been before. We are looking at some ways of innovation, like the voucher pilot program, but I would really encourage this committee to look more broadly at that.

So I reject the premise that we are not investing in newcomers. In fact, the $12 million expansion of the foreign credentials referral office for pre-integration programs abroad is a classic example of this. We want newcomers to get ready for the Canadian labour market, to get a head start on the credential recognition applications, and to make their job applications before they arrive here.

Finally, I think a lot of the expanded programs we have, such as the provincial nominee programs and the Canadian experience class, which is starting to pick up momentum, will lead to better economic outcomes.

In terms of your questions on COIA, I will refer this to our CFO in terms of the $88 million.

3:45 p.m.

Mark Watters Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

The funding that's included in this year's estimates is the COIA funding that was re-profiled from prior years, net of an amount that was also brought forward into earlier years as well, plus an increase under the Canada-Quebec accord.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Essentially, to summarize on COIA--

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Pardon me, Mr. Minister, you can respond to the rest in writing. I think it is important for us to speak, given that we only have 10 minutes per caucus.

I would like to refer to Haiti, because it is a major, key issue. I was somewhat disappointed by your parliamentary secretary who, last week, in response to a question on Haiti, said that there was no way we could treat countries in different ways depending on their circumstances. I thought that, in Canada, our definition of the word “humanitarian“ was somewhat different. That said, I would like to ask you some very direct questions on the situation in Haiti.

A supplementary budget of $4,788 million has been allocated to Haiti. Are you telling me that, as of March 5, only 160 permanent resident visas have been issued. There are 1,500 temporary visas. Temporary visas mean that those people will eventually have to return to their country.

I would like to know how many applications you have processed and received since the earthquake and how many new applications you have received. Because you also said that you were making announcements in addition to those that were already in the system. I should say that, given the urgency of the situation and the fact that there are still approximately 1 million displaced people, 160 visas is not a great deal. You have acted on adoption but, when it comes to family reunification, I am extremely concerned. I must tell you that I am not very pleased and neither is the Haitian community. I would like you to provide us with some figures on this matter.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

First, I will respond in writing to Mr. Bevilacqua's other questions so that I may orally respond to Mr. Coderre's now.

Mr. Coderre, the parliamentary secretary said that we could not treat countries differently. Like me, he was referring to countries that have dealt with natural disasters like the earthquake in Pakistan, the tsunami in southern Asia and, obviously, the earthquake in Haiti.

We have developed a humanitarian and flexible approach. I did not want to tell the families of earthquake victims in China or Pakistan that they would receive different treatment than Canadians of Haitian origin. As a former minister, you know full well that when it comes to immigration policy, everyone must be treated fairly and equitably. We try to do this, even in the context of the special measures we have announced.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

We disagree, minister. Give me some figures, please. We do not have the same definition of the word humanitarian.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

I believe that, before the earthquake, there were already approximately 3,000 people in the family sponsorship system. Obviously, these are cases that have already been expedited. In Quebec we have been told that 3,000 additional cases would be referred to us. Well, we have not yet received a single case from Quebec to date.

Ms. Deschênes, how many additional cases have we received since the announcement of the new measures?

3:50 p.m.

Claudette Deschênes Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Department of Citizenship and Immigration

I will answer your question, but I want to tell you first that we have helped to repatriate 4,600 Canadian citizens. Our embassy was partially destroyed; so there were certain things that we had to do. Moreover, over this period, 16 officers and other Canada Border Services Agency officers provided temporary service.

I simply wanted to explain to you that, in Haiti, in part because documents were destroyed and in part because of the situation for the people, it is by no means simple. At the moment, we are processing approximately 2,000 additional applications. We are also pulling out of our files all refugee applications that have been granted, so as to expedite their processing. So, we have approximately 2,000 applications.

In the eight weeks immediately following the earthquake, despite the fact that we had consular cases to deal with, among others, we have more or less managed to do the work that had been done every day for the last two years in Haiti. We also opened a mission in Santo Domingo.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

We have to stop there. We're well over the time. I'm sorry.

I have a feeling there will be more time for you to give that information later.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Let me add that next week, I believe, the committee will hold a meeting on all the issues concerning Haiti. Senior officials will be here to answer questions.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

You're right.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

3:50 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Minister, I want to talk to you about the use of French in the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. I have already spoken to you about this several times. I have asked questions about this issue in the House of Commons and at this committee. However, you have always hidden behind the judicial independence that the members of this board enjoy to tell me, ultimately, that you could not get involved.

Now, the Bolanos file, handled by Mr. Handfield, went before the Federal Court and, through your lawyers, you are directly challenging this person's right to have access to evidentiary documents in the language of his choice. That is clearly the case you are making. I have with me the brief that was presented by the Deputy Attorney General of Canada on behalf of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In paragraph III, it states the following: "The case at hand is not concerned with Mr. Bolanos Blanco's language rights, but it has to do with his right to benefit from a full and complete defence."

I attended the part of the hearing in Montreal that dealt with language, and I was surprised to see how much effort your lawyers expended to tell the court that it did not have to obey its own rules on the use of French. With this in mind, I would like to draw your attention to the Guide to Proceedings before the Immigration Division, prepared by your legal service. Item 6.3.3 is entitled “Consequences of changing the language of the proceeding on the presentation of the documentary evidence“. I will spare you the reading of the whole thing, but let me emphasize that the case described is exactly like the case at hand. In fact, the evidence was first drafted in English, then a request was made to change the language to French. It says:

Under rule 25(2), if the minister provides a document that is not in the language of the proceeding, the minister must provide a translation. Consequently, a change in the language of the proceeding may mean adjourning the hearing so that the documents provided by the minister can be translated [...]

The government has spent a great deal of effort and energy on this situation. It is truly a legal guerrilla war that seeks to demonstrate that the board does not have to follow its own rules, namely that evidence be presented in French.

However, when I ask you questions in the House, you say that you are in favour of using French and that you believe that the board must respect that. What you are saying politically and what your lawyers are saying before the court on your behalf are two different things.

I would like to have an explanation of this discrepancy and I would like to know why you are making such a to-do. Substantial resources have been invested in this.

Your government even issued a deportation order against Mr. Bolanos Blanco before the Federal Court had handed down its decision, which is rather extraordinary. Fortunately, the Federal Court granted a stay.

Why all this excitement? Are you afraid that it will create a precedent that favours the use of French?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. St-Cyr, for your questions.

The position that we have taken was not contradictory. The IRB acted in a way that was in keeping with the Official Languages Act and with the regulations under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I am pleased to inform you that the Federal Court was in favour of the position that we presented to the court on March 11, just last week. Mr. Bolanos Blanco's judicial review was rejected in a decision rendered by Justice Luc Martineau of the Federal Court.

None of the matters raised by Mr. Bolanos Blanco's lawyer for judicial review, including the question of the language of the proceeding, were upheld. In other words, Federal Court was favourable to the government position that the IRB had acted in a way that complied with the Official Languages Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I can tell you that Mr. Bolanos Blanco has left the country. He is no longer in Canada.

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

You are proud of the fact that Federal Court confirmed that a board member does not even have to obey the rules that provide for changing the language of proceedings. I find this rather contradictory. Perhaps you are happy about having won your case, which is not surprising given all the resources that you put into it, resources that come from the pockets of Quebec taxpayers. But there is still a contradiction between the message on the one hand and the reality on the other.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. St-Cyr, the IRB is a quasi-judicial body. It made a decision on the language of proceedings that was upheld by the Federal Court following legal action by Mr. Bolanos Blanco's lawyer.

The reason why the government took this position is exactly because it wants to protect the interests of Canadian taxpayers. Imagine, if lawyers could decide, at any moment, to change the language of the proceeding, compelling us to translate all the documents that were accepted in the original language of the proceeding, the cost would be incalculable. It could amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars in translation costs for taxpayers. The Federal Court and the IRB said that, if the lawyer and the client agree to a language of the proceeding, documents in that language are acceptable. That is the law, and I think that it is in the best interest of Quebec and Canadian taxpayers.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

The problem, Mr. Minister, is that your answer confirms my apprehensions. I think that the reason why you put so much energy into this case is that you do not want to create a precedent. You know very well that, even in Montreal, when a proceeding begins, the file is open in English and the evidence is gathered in English. Even before the first day of the hearing, everything has been produced in English, the minister has submitted his documents in English. So we can say that, in this particular case, we can ask for a change of the language of the proceeding all we like, but that everything is prepared in English right from the outset.

Would it not be a better solution to use French in Montreal by default? People who do not want to proceed in French should clearly declare that, and proceeding in French should not be the exception in Montreal, but the rule.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Jason Kenney Conservative Calgary Southeast, AB

Mr. Chair, Montreal is a part of Canada, which is a bilingual country. People have the right to choose the language of proceedings before legal tribunals. In the case we are discussing, Mr. Bolanos Blanco chose English as the language in the proceedings he brought before the IRB. It was his choice, not the IRB's choice, nor Canada Border Services Agency's. It was the client's choice, the refugee claimant's. He made his choice, he was served in the language of his choice and then he changed his mind, he changed the language and all the documents that were provided after that were in French. Consequently, according to the IRB and the Federal Court, the entire procedure was carried out legally and in compliance with the Official Languages Act.

I agree with the Federal Court and the IRB, and I am sorry that you do not.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Thierry St-Cyr Bloc Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

The problem is that no one ever really asks an individual, an immigrant—because, in this case, we are not talking about a refugee—what his or her language of choice is. The documents are often available in both languages, so clearly he had no choice between French and English. This is the case for Mr. Bolanos Blanco, among others. If it is already too late to choose on the first day of the hearing, I do not see how it could be done earlier, even before the hearing starts.

All immigration lawyers—

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative David Tilson

Mr. St-Cyr, perhaps we can wind up, please.