Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Well, I'll do whatever the committee wishes, but I think at this particular point in time we'll leave this issue for the next subcommittee meeting, whenever that is. You can raise it then and we'll debate it as to whether that process should be changed with the majority of the committee.

So we're back again, Madame Deschênes. I've lost track of the number of times you've been before us in the last period of time. I've even thought of recommending to the committee that you become an honorary member of the committee. Here you are.

As you know, when you're giving us your presentation, you have up to 10 minutes to speak to us on this subject. Thanks very much for coming again.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My name is Claudette Deschênes and I am the assistant deputy minister of operations at CIC. I am accompanied today by Paul Armstrong, director general of the centralized processing region at CIC.

I want to thank the committee for inviting me back. I had to think about that.

On a number of occasions recently, I have appeared before members of the committee to share with them the steps CIC has taken to deliver efficient and effective service, delivery that is integrated across our global network, facilitated by technology and partnerships, and guided by thoughtful risk management and quality assurance.

As members of the committee know, we live in an increasingly interconnected and complex world, and the hallmark of any successful government department is to constantly seek innovative ways to improve service to the public without compromising security.

We are doing a lot here in Canada and overseas to meet the goal and to make our immigration system work more efficiently and effectively. To that end, we have set service standards in a number of areas.

Although this list is not exhaustive, in 80% of responses to employers on exemptions from labour market opinions, it is our goal to provide an opinion within five business days from the time a complete request is received.

In 80% of overseas applications, we expect to make a final decision within 12 months from the time the family class application--and this would mean spouses, common-law partners, conjugal partners, and dependent children overseas--is received at the Mississauga case processing centre.

For 80% of new permanent residents, we will send an initial permanent resident card within 40 business days from the time the confirmation of permanent resident form is completed at a port of entry or at a CIC inland office.

We will provide all eligible applicants with a funding decision on their application within 90 business days of confirming their eligibility for funding or we will inform the applicants within that timeframe of any additional processing time that may be required. This is on grants and contributions.

Expanding our online services and increasing the use of online applications are just some examples of how we are achieving our objectives.

Our service standards can now be measured against CIC's actual performance and the results will be used to support our goal of enhancing service delivery.

We are committed to transparency, management accountability and citizen-centered service. Our service commitment is now outlined to the public on our website.

Thank you. My colleague and I will now be happy to respond to your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Karygiannis.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I think maybe we should take up that offer to make Ms. Deschênes an honourable member of the committee. She keeps coming back to us time and time again.

I would like to go back in history, Ms. Deschênes, and tell you that in 2006, when the government was changed, 80% of applications at all points of service—this is for spouses and partners—used to be nine months. Today it's 12 months. That's an overall increase of 33%. For dependent children, in 2006 it was 11 months for 80%. Today, in 2009, it's 13 months, an increase of 18%.

For spousal, in 2006 and 2009, Africa posts were nine months; today it's 14 months. For Asia and the Pacific it was seven months; today it's nine months. For Europe, it was eight months; now it is 10 months. If you look at those increases, specifically in Africa, a 55% increase; Asia and the Pacific, a 29% increase; Europe, a 25% increase--this is for spousal.

For dependent children in Africa in 2006, it was 11 months; today it's 24 months, an increase of 218%. For Asia and the Pacific, it was seven months; today it's 10 months, an increase of 42%. For the Americas it used to be 10 months; today it's 11 months, an increase of 11%.

I'd like to share with you some horror stories, and this is for spousal sponsorships. For Colombo, in 2006, it was seven months; today it's 14 months, an increase of 200%. For New Delhi, it went from five to six months, an increase of 12%. For Islamabad, it went from eight months to 14 months, a 175% increase. For Kingston, Jamaica--and this is a real horror story--it went up from five months for processing 80% of the spousal cases to 15 months today, an increase of 300%. For Cairo, it went up from seven months to 11 months, a 57% increase. For Nairobi, it went up from 13 months to 26 months, a 200% increase.

Dependent children in Nairobi, from 19 months to 37 months--these are our children out there, and from that part of the world it's doubled, a 194% increase. For Pretoria, it went up from seven months to 21 months, a 300% increase; New Delhi, from 10 months to 13 months, a 30% increase; Islamabad, from 12 months to 18 months, a 150% increase. Guatemala went up from 14 months to 23 months, a 164% increase. São Paulo, Brazil, went up from 10 months to 19 months, a 190% increase. Kingston, Jamaica, went up from six months to nine months, a total increase of 150%.

Those are some of the horror stories. When you're talking about spouses and children, that's got to be a priority, not only for today's government but for any government. It's got to be a priority with the department when we're dealing with uniting our families. When you have some cases where it's taken up to 37 months, over three years, for a parent to see his child, I think that is totally unacceptable.

I understand that in some cases we have officers serving in extraordinary circumstances, but if an officer does not want to fill that position, I am sure if you were to make a call, there would be a lineup of people who do want to go to those posts and serve.

Those examples—and this is why the study was brought in—need to be addressed. I don't care who the minister or the government is. The onus is on all of us, and especially on officials, so that when we look at this, we either somehow have to get more resources or, if the resources are not forthcoming from the minister, you're going to have to come to this committee and say the resources are not there.

This can be an impartial.... This is not Liberals or Conservatives or NDP or Bloc. These are our children, our spouses. These are husbands and wives whom we are trying to unite. If that doesn't take priority, then we, as Canadians, people in this room who are asking you to fulfill the mandate of the government regardless of what they....

Certainly, there's been an example under this government that increases have happened. The obligations we have to unite families are obligations that go above and beyond the call of duty—to unite families and bring them together.

My simple question is, what plans does the department have? What are the department's plans? What direction has the minister given you to address the horror stories, the overall increases of 33% all over the posts, 18% for children, and especially increases in some cases like Africa, where dependent children went from 11 months to 24 months, a 218% increase? Please enlighten us and tell us what there is.

If you don't have the resources, how can we impartially, no matter which government it is, help you get those resources? If that means we ask the minister to go to the cabinet table to ask for more money, so be it.

I cannot hear these horror stories every single day. They keep getting worse and worse. I'm sure you've seen it yourself over the years, as an immigration official who has been there for a long time.

[Claudette Deschênes]

In fairness, the department is doing what it can to modernize and make things faster. Our priority is to reunite families, and we take that seriously.

Having said that, we may not be comparing apples to apples. We used to issue a document, the immigration visa, and it was put in the mail and sent to the applicant. After September 11 we made a decision, from a program integrity perspective, to require all the passports to be sent to the mission and a counterfoil given.

I'm just saying that when we compare the processing times, we may have added one or two months just regularly in terms of the process--

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

Ms. Deschênes, I don't mean to interrupt you, but I'm telling you about the year 2004, and that was three years after 9/11. The processes in 2004 and today are similar.

[Claudette Deschênes]

Don't forget that the processing time talks about the applications that are finalized in that year. Although we started talking about it, I don't think we put it in place in 2001, for example. That's one thing.

The other thing--and we've talked about it before--is that global case management will permit us to more flexibly move the workload to where people are, as opposed to moving people to the workload. Global case management, as we roll it out this coming year, will also permit us to have a lot more information in the electronic format as opposed to a paper file. That will permit us to do a certain amount of risk-taking as far as how much information we have on which to make decisions.

I'm not arguing about the missions you've chosen, but I will remind you that 80% of family class spouses and dependent children globally are completed in 12 months. One can talk about whether 12 months is the right amount of time or too much time. The last time I was here, Mr. Dryden asked what baseline we were looking at. We're going to do a study to look at that, because I think it would help us.

I also want to say that 82% of the applications globally are accepted under that.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

We're way over. Can you be quick?

[Claudette Deschênes]

Basically it's about--

[A voice]

She'll come back.

[Claudette Deschênes]

No.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I wasn't suggesting that you come back another day. I'm just going to move on to Monsieur St-Cyr and Madame Thi Lac.

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

Mr. Chair, can I just ask two questions and she can respond to the committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

No, I'm sorry. You're well over.

I'm sorry, Madam Deschênes, but I have to follow the rules here.

Monsieur St-Cyr.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Karygiannis mentioned a whole series of countries that are experiencing problems with waiting times. Once again I would like to get a little feedback on Haiti because, in our constituency offices and in the media, there are always stories that come back to us from the field. We already have contacts in Haiti. We constantly have cases where people obtained their CSQ—their certificat de sélection du Québec—a long time ago. In some cases, medical exams have expired and they have to start the process over.

Is processing being speeded up and, if so, what is the magnitude of that acceleration?

[Claudette Deschênes]

If you go to the departmental website, you will have recently seen that we have set objectives. We aim to complete the processing of files that we had before the earthquake by the end of April. So we will decide who can come, who will be entitled to permanent residence. For some cases that we can't finalize, we will issue permits if there is an urgent reason to bring them in. If the application is denied, we will give them a final answer. We'll have them take an interview.

If we can do that, how will it be possible? They say it takes time for things to move, but in fact we need places to conduct interviews, for example. So we've set up tables outdoors to do everything that's necessary. We're trying to process the urgent cases, go at it on a case-by-case basis and make decisions. You must also recall that all the applications filed before the earthquake will be processed.

For later on, we've adopted a tight schedule for all new cases. We'll try to finalize the Haiti cases affected by the earthquake in six months at most. It normally takes much longer.

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

You said the end of April. I imagine that means the decisions will be made at an exponential rate and that, at the very end, a number of them will arrive at the same time. If we continue at the present rate, we'll never get there.

[Claudette Deschênes]

That's true, but, as we told you the last time we talked about Haiti, a certain turnover has to be established, and that turnover is starting.

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

In cases where waiting times have already been very long and medical examinations have expired, for example, do you have some flexibility, for example, to exempt people from another medical examination? Do they have to follow the same process today?

[Claudette Deschênes]

People don't have the choice not to undergo the examination. According to our new measures, we'll merely request an X-ray, but not all the other analyses. We could also decide to do nothing and they can come to Canada with a permit and redo their medical examination here. We obviously prefer that they arrive here with permanent residency.

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

We previously talked about sponsorship, requirements regarding financial resources and the fact that a lot of people had trouble securing those kinds of amounts. We had a discussion. I wanted to know whether you had enough flexibility under the directives to consider specific situations that have been presented to us, when people can obtain income from sponsored parents or family members, etc. Do you have some flexibility in administering the act?

[Claudette Deschênes]

First, I would like to correct something that was said. We checked and, if someone has received income security benefits, that person cannot sponsor anyone until that person has repaid his or her debt to the income security program. This is not a permanent ban; the person must pay in order to be able to sponsor someone.

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

You say paying. Do you mean repaying?

[Claudette Deschênes]

With regard to flexibility, the Mississauga office normally cannot deny a sponsorship. If the sponsorship is not possible as a result of the low income threshold, that case must be referred to an overseas office for review of all the facts pertaining to the case. The question is not to have a sponsorship approved by referring to others because our sponsorship regulations are clear with regard to who can sign a sponsorship application.

The Mississauga office will say whether applicants do not meet requirements and will request that the case be reviewed outside Canada. In that instance, we'll consider the situation as a whole before making a decision. Will that person be allowed in as an independent because he or she cannot meet sponsorship requirements? We'll look at that on a case-by-case basis.