Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2011

[Nigel Thomson]

Yes, certainly.

For most of the other U.S. immigration programs there's a strict priority processing: get a ticket, get a number, and get in line, by country, and eventually your number will come up. It creates huge differentials in processing. For example, with the Philippines, in certain U.S. immigration categories the waiting times are 15 years or more.

Britain has changed over the last three- to four-year period and has radically cut back on the programs available for immigration. It has simply eliminated wholesale programs of eligibility, restricting the number of immigrants it can accept--

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I'm sorry to cut you off, but we're getting very little time here today.

Canada is a welcoming country, obviously, as we have a backlog of a million-plus, so it's a testament that people want to come to Canada. Previous witnesses have said that the federal government has lost control over immigration and that urgent reforms are needed.

I think we can all agree that the backlog started in 2002 with the legislation by the previous Liberal government. I'm wondering if you could give us three recommendations for urgent reforms that need to be done right now so we can address the backlog issues in Canada.

[Nigel Thomson]

The first thing I would say is that we have to realize that with the target level we've established, immigration is essentially a zero-sum game. If we process more in one category, then we have to process less in another. I think our balance in immigration is probably correct overall, with its balance between social and family reunification and economic immigration.

My recommendation would be that we need more efficient processing within the system. I think we would address that with more fees and more resources, and I've talked about how we might be able to do that.

The other thing we need to do is look for alternatives. For example, the family class parental sponsorship program has a huge backlog. It's one that's very troubling for all of us as practitioners and for the ministry and the minister.

We need to look at the underlying motivations of why there are so many parental sponsorships. In many cases, it's simply because families want to have their parents visit Canada freely. If we introduced a system whereby parents would be able to receive long-term visitor visas easily, not through the current very difficult visa process, that would reduce demand.

The second reason for family class sponsorship is to bring siblings to Canada. Let's introduce a program to allow student visas to be issued for siblings, whereby Canadian residents can sponsor their brother or sister to come to Canada as a foreign student who is paying foreign student fees and is supported by the family--

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

I'm really sorry to cut you off, but I have one question I want to direct--

[Nigel Thomson]

Sure.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

--if I still have a few minutes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Don Davies]

I'm sorry, Ms. James. That's 4 minutes and 30 seconds, so I'm sorry to—

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Oh, you did cut me off? Okay, I'll pass it over to Mr. Weston.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'm going to speak like a machine gun.

Welcome to all the witnesses.

Also, thank you, Ms. Morrissey. First, I want to say as a recent visitor to Iraq on a human rights mission that I was at a public event last night where Minister Kenney spoke. He has heard your message, loud and clear, about the plight of people who are being discriminated against and persecuted for their sexual orientation, and he has personally intervened. I want you to know that he's a minister who cares about people in that situation, specifically in Iraq. I appreciate your making that message.

Let me switch to Mr. Thomson. When you were a senior immigration officer for Canada abroad, you were one of the first who put public information on a website to help people around the world better understand Canada's immigration policy. As everyone in the room is dedicated to the promotion of public interest, I thank you--and you continue that to this day.

Canada introduced a policy in 2002 that legally requires our government to process every application it receives. Can you please comment on that and how it affects the backlog?

[Nigel Thomson]

It's a huge issue, obviously, in generating the backlogs we face today. Bill C-50 was again very innovative. The minister took a bold step to give himself some control over the ability to accept applications. But that, moving forward, is only addressing essentially economic immigration categories; it hasn't addressed the family class, particularly parental sponsorships.

I think we have a basic conflict, Mr. Weston, between the basic principles of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, which embodies and enshrines family reunification as a principle we all adhere to, and the concept of what family reunification really means in the 21st century. That's something that needs to be the subject of a frank, open, and realistic conversation with Canadians.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Could you please be more specific? Even if the applications outnumber the number of persons we can welcome every year, the government is legally required under the 2002 Liberal policy to process every one. Can you give us some specific suggestions on what we should be doing?

[Nigel Thomson]

I think you raised an absolutely critical issue, that is, the burden the government and the bureaucrats in the department face is one that simply cannot be met with existing resources and with the existing targets.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Don Davies]

Thank you, Mr. Thomson. I'm sorry, but the time is up.

Mr. Kellway, for seven minutes.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and through you to the witnesses, thank you so much, folks, for travelling from far afield to share your thoughts about the backlog issue with us.

First, Ms. Morrissey, to make sure that your efforts to come from the farthest afield are well spent, I'd like to start with you.

Mr. Thomson—and I hope I get back to you, Mr. Thomson, to ask you a question—talked about immigration being a zero-sum issue, and that has been the premise of this study, I think, as set out by the minister. He approaches it this way.

Yet what we've heard today and previously from other witnesses is that there are multiple streams in the immigration system. Each one serves a different purpose and each stream has different implications for Canada and, indeed, for the global community.

One of the issues you raised around the refugee stream is what the implications of Canada putting a cap on refugee immigration are having around the world. I was wondering if you might share those. I was a bit taken aback by the number you gave; I think it was 46 million displaced persons. Perhaps you could elaborate a bit on the implications of Canada putting caps on refugee claims for the global community.

[Christine Morrissey]

First I'd like to speak to the cap that's been already put on the sponsorship agreement holders. Their ability as private sponsors to sponsor refugees has been significantly limited. They have people willing to work and support something like 8,000 refugees from various parts of the world. There are Canadians who are willing, in fact, to take on that one-year commitment, and sometimes more than that.

So one of the concerns is the cap that already exists. I think it also really limits Canadians who are in fact willing and want to support people who are coming from the global south.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

It's a bit speculative, Ms. Morrissey, but yesterday the minister made an announcement and set levels without setting levels by way of stream. I wonder if you have any thoughts on what may happen or what the implications may be for the refugee stream.

[Christine Morrissey]

What the government has set is its highs and lows in terms of its targets and generally it comes nowhere near meeting its high targets. For the sponsorship under family reunification of children who are the overseas families of refugees who are already settled in Canada, it didn't even meet the low end of the target.

So I think that talking about caps for refugees is not necessarily what we need to be talking about. What we need to be talking about is how it's possible for Canada, with all its resources, to take on a larger commitment when the numbers of refugees are growing. While I recognize that there are these two programs for Iraqi and LGBT refugees, when you look at Kenya and Nairobi and, for us, how many of our refugee claimants come from Uganda, from various parts in East Africa...they're going to die before they get here.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Audet, I would like to ask you a question. I appreciate the very comprehensive presentation you gave us. There are certain challenges for me in trying to digest a lot of the numbers you've presented, but it seems to me—and please tell me if I have this right—that what you're proposing here with your presentation flies in the face of some testimony we've heard to date, which would suggest that processing and the capability of CIC to process claims isn't really what's responsible for the backlog.

If I look at these numbers and if I understand them correctly, that's not your argument. You're suggesting that there is in fact a processing problem here that to a large extent is responsible for our backlog. Is that the case? Do I understand you correctly?

[Marc Audet]

What I'm saying is that, more or less, CIC has the capacity to process close to 400 applications a year. We had some peaks in 2009 when they did 437. The average was 435 for the past five years. So we already have the just-in-time approach.

In some years, maybe, they have a higher intake than the final decision, but the main problem is on the screening, because an unqualified client will submit his application and we have no choice, as you mentioned, because of the rules since 2002, but to process the application. We need some kind of screening somewhere, whatever the category is. So maybe, yes, instead of approving now...generally speaking, the figure I gave you is that there is about a 70% approval rate at the end, but let's say you have other third parties involved, other collaborators--maybe we can bring that to 80% very fast.

What I'm saying is that we're losing time. We're using the manpower of the government to deny applications. Some of them may have other good reasons, but a lot of them may be unqualified.

[Matthew Kellway, NDP, Beaches—East York, ON]

On page 4 of your presentation, I'm looking at the 115,000 applications denied figure at the bottom of the page, where it says “Major source of backlog”. Can you explain the concept of denied applications?

[Marc Audet]

If the CIC has the capacity to process 275,000 people, let's say, as an example, and they approve 260,000 a year, which is the normal year we have--and that's what we're looking for next year, too, more or less--that means they process 115,000 people who were told, “Sorry, you cannot get into Canada”. Instead, let's say that all of the 275,000 people are qualified; they have to spend the time anyway, so maybe in a perfect world we can let 275,000 in if we have the capacity. So what I'm saying is—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Don Davies]

Thank you, Mr. Audet. I'm sorry, but your time is up.

Mr. Casey, for five minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Witnesses and colleagues, I'm at a bit of a disadvantage here. I'm pinch-hitting for Mr. Lamoureux. My questions will not be nearly as well informed or well formed as they would be if Mr. Lamoureux were in this chair, so please, everyone, just bear with me. It'll be over in five minutes or less.

I also haven't had the benefit of hearing your presentations, because as soon as I sat down, Kevin got in my ear and said, “Ask them this and this and this”. So if it comes out clumsily, that's why. My apologies in advance.

Mr. Thomson, I understand that your presentation was dedicated in part to the provincial nominee program. I'm from Prince Edward Island. The provincial nominee program has been a huge success in my little province in terms of really galvanizing the province against the effects of the recession, because of the huge influx of capital, but also, in a very short period of time, by diversifying our population. It has been a huge success. I don't know this, but I fully expect that the benefits that we've seen in Prince Edward Island would be those that would be sought after and very popular across the rest of the country.

I guess my question for you is this. Given what I've witnessed in terms of what good has come from that program in my little part of the world, what's happening in the rest of the country in terms of the uptake on this program? Also, what does it mean for the problem that we're discussing?

[Nigel Thomson]

That's an excellent question. In fact, PNP, the provincial nominee programs, have been a success across the country. They've received a significant number of applications, there have been a lot of approvals, and provincial governments are on board with them because of the direct economic impact they can have on the provinces.

We're seeing a lot of PNP approvals from B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, P.E.I., Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario. The programs are very successful. They obviously represent a delegation of authority...or a sharing, I think, is the proper way of looking at it, between the federal government and the provinces. It is very desirable to get the provinces involved in the immigration program. The program is definitely a success and we all hope that we'll continue to expand.

The issue is--and it's one I wanted to address--that when the provinces approve and nominate an individual, it's up to the federal government to do the processing of immigrant visas and to review the individual's background, qualifications, and documents to ensure all the information is accurate and correct. That process is bogging down. There's a new backlog being created.

We've seen PNP processing times go from being under a year to now being up to about 18 months. As a result, provinces are being delayed in getting the benefit of the immigrants arriving in their territory and in them being able to do the job or to establish the business that they promised to establish. So there needs to be an accommodation in the system to recognize that the federal government has to match the increased involvement of the provincial governments in selecting PNPs by increasing its own capacity to process visas and issue approvals to PNP applicants.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you.

Mr. Perron, I understand that part of your presentation related to investor immigrants. I presume these would be investor immigrants not through the provincial nominee program. Would that be fair?