Citizenship and Immigration Committee on March 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Good morning, everyone. This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 48, on Thursday, March 10, 2011. The orders of the day, which are televised, are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of immigration application process wait times.

Mr. Gilbert, welcome again to our committee, as we continue to study this very important topic. We have a couple of missions that you're going to introduce to us: from Moscow, where I understand it's 4:45 in the afternoon; and from Kiev, where it's 2:45 in the afternoon. We are hearing from them by video conference. You may have some introductory remarks, and perhaps you could introduce your colleagues.

[Rénald Gilbert, Director General, International Region, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The first thing I would like to mention, which is a bit of a change compared to the other mission that came as witnesses to the committee, is that these two missions are slightly smaller than the large mission we saw a bit earlier. Another difference as well is the number of applications. Contrary to what we have seen in others, it has been going down for a number of years. That is also a change with regard to the others.

I would like to introduce you, from Kiev, Tom Richter, the immigration program manager, and Kathleen Sigurdson, the immigration program manager in Moscow.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Gilbert.

Ms. Sigurdson, Mr. Richter, can you hear us? You can.

I'm going to ask each of you to make a brief presentation to the committee, and then the committee members will have questions for you.

Ms. Sigurdson, could you speak first for up to seven minutes? You don't have to speak for seven minutes, but you can speak up to seven minutes.

[Kathleen Sigurdson, Immigration Program Manager, Moscow, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you very much. Good morning.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to thank the committee for inviting me to speak. My name is Kathleen Sigurdson, and I am the immigration program manager in Moscow, Russia.

I would like to provide a short overview of the program in Moscow, emphasizing topics that I believe are of the most interest to the committee. The Moscow visa office is a full service centre, serving a vast territory spanning nine time zones and comprising six countries: Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyz Republic, and Armenia. Of these countries, Russia provides two-thirds of the office's permanent resident application intake and 86% of the temporary resident application volume.

There are eight Canadian-based officers in Moscow, including two mission integrity officers employed by Canada Border Services Agency and 28 permanent locally engaged staff positions. Unlike many missions, there are no local decision-makers in Moscow.

The year 2010 brought with it numerous specific challenges and pressures. The Winter Olympics and G-8/G-20 in early 2010 placed increased demands on the temporary resident program. The fires and heat wave during the summer of 2010 resulted in the evacuation of most of the Canadian visa officers, though basic operations continued and the embassy remained open. All of these factors inevitably meant that in 2010, temporary resident processing often took priority over permanent resident files.

I will now talk about temporary residents. Despite the fact that Russia was seriously affected by the global economic crisis in 2009, Russians are more interested than ever in visiting Canada. The overall trend over the past four years has been a considerable increase in temporary resident visa applications.

In total, the office processed temporary resident visa applications from 25,024 people in 2010, with an overall approval rate of 81%. This represents a 17% increase over 2009.

Regarding students, the number of study permit applications received in 2010 remained at the same level as 2009, with 1,518 applications.

Regarding temporary foreign workers, in 2010, Moscow received 473 applications for work permits. Intra-company transferees constitute most of the applications for work permits in Moscow.

I will now address the permanent resident program in Moscow, which I understand to be the main area of interest for the standing committee.

Fraud and misrepresentation are problems in most immigration application streams. Of the 200 immigrant refusals in 2010, approximately 5% resulted in a report for misrepresentation. This is often due to fraudulent education or employment documents.

In 2010, there was a considerable reduction in the intake of both federal and Quebec economic applications. Application intake under federal skilled worker and business categories was nearly half that of 2009. This is likely a direct result of Bill C-50 and is also likely related to the recent economic recovery in Russia. Moscow does not have an inventory of skilled worker applications received before November 2008, or pre-Bill C-50.

The approval rate for federal skilled worker and business cases in 2010 was 75%, slightly less than in 2009. For Quebec skilled worker and business cases, it was more or less unchanged at 96%.

Investors: there are 81 federal investor cases in process and 31 active investor cases selected by Quebec. All of our federal cases predate the administrative pause on federal investor processing of June 28, 2012. Lengthy background checks have contributed to the long processing times of federal investors of 43.5 months. Processing times for Quebec investor cases are somewhat shorter, at 32.1 months.

Family class: spouses and common-law partners represent 56% of the total family class intake, which was 551 in 2010. The current processing time for 80% of spouses and common-law partner applications is 9.4 months, with an approval rate of 91%. The main reason for refusals in these cases remains marriages of convenience.

Children represent 4% of the family class intake; 80% of applications are processed within 7.5 months, with an approval rate of almost 83%.

Parents and grandparents represent 26% of the family class intake. Processing time for 80% of these applications is 26 months, with an approval rate of 93%.

Adoptions represent 13% of family class intake. Processing time for 80% of applications is 3.6 months. There were no refusals in 2010 under this category, and problems in this movement are rare.

Refugees, protected persons: visas issued to refugees nearly doubled in 2010, primarily as a result of the resumption of regular referrals from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the second half of 2009 and several interview trips conducted in former Soviet republics of central Asia in both 2009 and 2010. This has led to a moderate growth of an inventory of government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugee cases, allowing for better refugee target management. Processing times for most refugees were also reduced significantly in 2010. Security and war crimes concerns are not infrequent in Moscow's refugee caseload, and lengthy background checks continue to create a challenge for managing targets.

In terms of client service initiatives, there is a strong perception among hosts, partners and the business community that processing times for temporary residents are too long and the application process is burdensome. In the past six months, numerous improvements to client service have been made for high-profile, business and other urgent cases.

I wish to assure you, Mr. Chair, that we are committed to providing excellent and timely client service for applicants in all categories while upholding our obligation to protect the health and safety of Canadians. In addition to considering the feasibility of streamlining certain aspects of our upfront immigration screening process, we have planned various quality assurance activities for the immigration program in 2011.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Ms. Sigurdson.

[Kathleen Sigurdson]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Richter.

[Thomas Richter, Immigration Program Manager, Kiev, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me to speak.

My name is Thomas Richter, and I am the immigration program manager in Kiev.

I would like to provide a short overview of the program in Kiev, emphasizing topics that I believe would be of most interest to the committee. The visa section in Kiev is a full-service office, with 13 staff serving clients residing in Ukraine. Applicants for temporary resident visas from Moldova and Belarus also travel to Kiev to apply, as no visas are required to enter Ukraine.

While I know that the committee is focusing on wait times for economic and family class applications, I would like to talk briefly about our temporary resident program, as it is a major part of our program delivery.

In 2010, Kiev processed over 8,000 temporary resident visa applications, which represented an increase in applications from 2009, when 7,650 were processed. The acceptance rate is 79% and has remained constant. Family visits represent roughly 70% of our caseload, while business-related and official travel is approximately 25%, and only 5% of applications tend to be purely for tourism purposes.

Students destined to “English as a second language” programs, especially those offering paid work as part of the curriculum, feature significantly in this movement. Given the higher levels of fraud encountered with this movement, extra focus is placed upon document verification, which requires more time and resources on our part. The result of this fraud is a high refusal rate among these applicants.

In 2010, Kiev finalized 528 study permit applications, with an acceptance rate of 65%. In 2009, Kiev finalized 588 study permit applications, with a similar acceptance rate.

In relation to temporary foreign workers, in 2010 Kiev processed work permit applications for 800 persons, including those in two major agricultural projects involving 175 applicants. Given the global economic recession, fewer provincial nominee applications were received when compared with previous years.

I will now talk about Kiev's permanent resident program.

Emigration has been a long-standing fact of life for many Ukrainians. The search for better economic possibilities, escape from repression, and family reunification have all been salient factors. The movement of Ukrainians to Canada has a very long history, which continues to this day.

In 2010, Kiev issued 2,194 immigrant visas, a 20% increase over 2009. Our overall target for 2011 should be met with little difficulty. Kiev's current inventory of immigrant cases as of February 4, 2011, is very small at 776.

Document fraud and misrepresentation continue to be challenges faced in most immigration application streams. Marriages and divorces of convenience, as well as submission of fraudulent employment and education documents, are the primary types of this fraud. The presence of a migration integrity officer in Kiev to address fraud issues has made a significant improvement and has allowed us to address fraud issues more efficiently.

In the economic category, 2010 and 2009 both saw a sizeable reduction in the intake of these applications. Much of this may be attributed to the economic downturn, which had a serious effect upon Ukraine. Intake of skilled workers is also down, largely due to Bill C-50; here, Kiev has witnessed a refusal rate of 86%. The current inventory of Bill C-50 cases awaiting assessment is approximately 20 cases. The approval rate for all economic category cases in 2010 was 62%, virtually unchanged from 2009.

Kiev has virtually no business applicants, with an inventory of 27 cases, primarily of entrepreneurs. Consequently, Kiev's targets in these categories are low.

In the family class, spouses and common-law partners represented 55% of the total family class caseload in 2010.

The current processing time for 80% of spouse and common-law partner applications is 11 months, with an approval rate of 81%. The main reason for refusals in these cases remains marriages of convenience, and processing times in this category have improved significantly over previous years, when they ranged from 14 to 19 months.

Children represent approximately 10% of the family class cases processed. Applications take six months to process in 80% of the applications, with an approval rate of 85%. Parents and grandparents represented 35% of the family class spaces processed. Processing time for 80% of applications is 27 months, with an approval rate of 86%. Delays in processing of parent and grandparent applications are usually attributed to a high proportion of medical furtherances or delays in receiving documents. In 2010, Kiev slightly exceeded its target for family class applicants. Targets for sponsored parents and grandparents are managed globally.

Client service initiatives: with the introduction of the global case management system in November 2010 and a projected move to a new interim chancery, a change to our client service model was needed. Kiev moved to a drop-off system with optional pre-paid courier delivery service within Ukraine for a low fixed fee. An increasing proportion of our clientele now use mail-in services and courier services to avoid the burden of travelling to and from Kiev and queueing up to submit applications. Positive comments, especially from elderly applicants living far away, have more than justified this client service initiative. As well, internal reorganization in the immigration program in Kiev has resulted in faster permanent resident processing times, particularly for spouses and children.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Richter.

I thank both of you for your presentations to the committee. Each caucus will have up to seven minutes for questions and answers, and we're going to start with Mr. Wrzesnewskyj from the Liberal caucus.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair. My question is to Mr. Richter.

Good afternoon, Mr. Richter.

Processing times and numbers are directly impacted by staffing levels at immigration sections. That's why, on March 4, 2009, in referring to the immigration staffing levels in Kiev, I asked Minister Kenney about Conservative government staffing cuts in Kiev. Unfortunately, he didn't answer the question, and instead stated that under the Conservative government immigration levels have increased from Ukraine. We'll deal with the accuracy or inaccuracy of that particular statement. However, soon afterwards there was a press release that he put out under the title, MP “misleads Ukrainian-Canadians about immigration from Ukraine” and “The facts”. This is a direct quote from there. He says, “Since mid-2006, there have been no reductions in staffing in the visa section of the Canadian embassy in Ukraine.”

Are you aware of any staffing cuts in the immigration section at the embassy in Kiev in 2006?

[Thomas Richter]

I believe there was a reduction of one decision-maker and two support staff in 2006.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you. That in fact is what I found out on March 9 from the Library of Parliament.

The citizenship and immigration department wrote a response and said there were a total of 14 working staff in the visa section at the beginning of 2005 and 2006. In the summer of 2006, one Canada-based visa officer position and two locally engaged staff positions were redeployed to other missions, leaving a total of 11 staff.

My question is to Mr. Gilbert and Mr. Richter.

Your department has stated that in fact there was a staffing cut. It was approximately 30% of the staff that was cut. Did the minister not know, when he put out this press release claiming that I was misleading when I was talking about these staffing cuts, or was in fact the minister misleading? Was the minister not informed, after being asked this question in the House, and a few days later he put out a press release in which he stated there were no cuts? Was he causing confusion, or did he just not know? Was he not being informed by his own department?

[Rénald Gilbert]

I'm not sure of the exact time he said that because it depends on the question. If you refer to what was their transfer of resources—I can't say cut—they were transferred to another mission, so they're actually....

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Cut from Kiev and passed on somewhere else.

[Rénald Gilbert]

Exactly, and it would depend upon when you ask, because there were additions of staff to Kiev. Right now, we have thirteen staff in Kiev, which is two more than then.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

No, my question was—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you've asked him a question. He's trying to answer it.

Go ahead, sir.

[Rénald Gilbert]

Currently we have two staff more than in 2006, so if I just look at that, I can't say we have cut that much, 30%. We did not cut 30%. If I look historically, we had 14 staff before 2006. Now we have 13 staff. We have one person fewer. We had a 48% drop in applications, so if we had done it with regard to applications received, it would be a much deeper cut, and that's certainly unfair for other missions.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

My question was whether the minister had been misinformed by the department as to the cuts that took place in 2006 or whether he was in fact misleading when he said there were no cuts in 2006.

I understand the difficulty in answering that—

[Rénald Gilbert]

I don't have the quote, sorry. It depends on when it was asked and how it was formulated. If you said there was a 30% reduction, as of today, that's not true, so what can I say?

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Okay.

March 9 is when CIC, your department, informed the Library of Parliament that in fact staffing cuts occurred in the summer of 2006. On March 30, in debates in the House of Commons, a couple of weeks after the department had informed the Library of Parliament and myself, the minister's parliamentary secretary stated:

Contrary to the hon. member's claims, there have been no reductions in staffing the visa section of the Canadian embassy in Ukraine....

All aspects of the hon. member's questions are full of factual errors.

Unfortunately, it appears that both the minister and his parliamentary secretary, notwithstanding the facts that there were cuts in 2006, were publicly stating in the House of Commons and in press releases that it wasn't the case.

I'd like to move on to another question on applications processed abroad for parents and grandparents. In Kiev in 2009 there were 260 and in 2010 there were 65; the 2011 target is 25. We've seen a one-third reduction and then again a one-third reduction.

When you set this target, you pretty much meet that target. Is that not correct?

[Rénald Gilbert]

Not necessarily. First of all, if I look back, we set the target according to the levels that are announced normally in November. After that we set an operational target globally and then we look at how we will subdivide it. When we subdivide it we look, in the case of parents and grandparents, at the age of the inventory. If I look at the age of the inventory, we look essentially at the applications that pre-date 2009 and try to make sure for those who applied longer ago that the target will be set for those categories.

We had a very small number of cases from the Ukraine. We had 31 persons who had applied before 2009, so it was set according to that. None of the missions actually had enough to meet all of that because we had a lot of cases from 2007-08. When we look at setting the target, we don't look at how many there were the previous year. Frankly, we do not look at all at that. We look essentially at how many cases are at what stage in the setup.

Will we meet the target? Normally we try to as much as possible. We have to make adjustments during the year because sometimes we overshoot and we have to redirect. In the case of Ukraine, I know we will overshoot for sure. We have already overshot.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, sir.

We have Mr. St. Cyr from the caucus of the Bloc Québécois.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I want to thank our witnesses.

I was somewhat surprised to hear Ms. Sigurdson say that, unlike many other missions, the Moscow mission doesn't have a local decision maker. Why are there no local decision makers in Moscow? How does this fact affect the operation of your mission?

[Kathleen Sigurdson]

I can answer in French or in English; it's up to you.