Citizenship and Immigration Committee on May 31st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Pursuant to the order of reference received from the House on Wednesday, November 2, 2016, the committee will resume its study on M-39, regarding immigration to Atlantic Canada.

I would like to welcome from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Mr. Jordi Morgan, by video conference; from Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, Ms. Juanita Ford; and from the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies, Mr. Marco Navarro-Génie, the president and chief executive officer, by video conference as well.

Welcome to our committee.

We'll begin with a statement from Mr. Morgan, for seven minutes, please.

[Jordi Morgan, Vice-President, Atlantic Canada, Canadian Federation of Independent Business]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to be here today to provide CFIB's perspective on the Atlantic growth strategy's immigration pilot.

CFIB, as you may know, is a not-for-profit, non-partisan organization representing 109,000 small and medium-sized businesses across the country representing all sectors of the economy. We take direction solely from our members. I'm going to share with you, rather quickly I will say, some surveys we've taken throughout the area and some of the data we have for you.

The first slide you will see is on SME priority issues. I think you will understand why we're showing you this, as the shortage of qualified labour is one of the largest issues facing SMEs in this country, at around 45%.

The next slide you will see is CFIB's business barometer. I want to note that Atlantic Canada's small business confidence has shown some slow but steady progress since last fall. Short-term hiring plans are consistent with the trends we see at this time of year. The chart you have in front of you is the Canadian index, but there are some seasonal factors now that are contributing to slight improvements throughout the Atlantic region.

As I noted a little bit earlier, labour availability is very important to SMEs. While some dispute that there is a labour skill shortage in Canada, our members indicate that this is a serious and growing shortage of qualified people in many sectors in many regions in the country. The shortage remains an important factor limiting many small and medium-sized businesses from growing.

This is further reinforced by what you will see on the next page, which is CFIB's quarterly help wanted report that looks at private sector job vacancies. It found that the national vacancy rate is at about 2.4%, which represents 300,000 private sector job openings that have been unfilled for the last four months because business owners have been unable to find suitable employees.

In Atlantic Canada, the rate ranges from 2% to 2.5%, with construction, hospitality, and agriculture each facing vacancy rates of around 3%. Immigration and programs like the temporary foreign worker program are important tools to help some small business employers address these labour shortages.

More than half are looking to fill jobs that require on-the-job training, which can be categorized as NOC, national occupational classification, level C, or more likely level D. Almost half are looking to fill jobs with a NOC level C that require occupation-specific training. One-third are looking at college diploma/apprenticeship training at NOC level B. Fewer than 10% are looking at NOC level A, or people with a university education.

There are those who claim that businesses are not doing enough to attract and retain Canadian workers. The next slide will show you that this is not the case. Entrepreneurs are doing many things to attract and retain Canadian workers, because they would much prefer to have a Canadian working than to go through a lengthy and costly immigration process. Our slide shows how entrepreneurs are expanding their search for workers.

The next slide shows the types of positions being filled by TFWs, temporary foreign workers. These jobs are being filled by TFWs because Canadian employers cannot find homegrown workers. If you break out the data by sector, it will show that needs for different types of workers vary significantly depending on the industry in question.

It is also important to note that almost six in 10 respondents said that having access to temporary foreign workers allows them to keep their businesses open and keep the Canadian workers in those businesses employed. Another 48% believe it allowed them to expand. On the following slide, I would welcome you to take just a few moments, perhaps a little later, to look at some of the comments surrounding this from our members.

The next chart is evidence of some of the difficulties in the system—and I don't think they'll be strange to you—the pinch points being timelines, paperwork, and government customer service. Most of this is not found in the immigration department per se, but in Service Canada.

Beside the red tape and headaches are the costs. Before businesses can hire a foreign worker, they typically have to take a series of steps, including advertising, wage approval, return airfare, accommodation, recruiting fees, and the list goes on. Sixty-eight per cent of business owners said that the TFWs cost more than Canadian workers, but we are seeing some improvements.

As you'll see on the next page, we are pleased to see the four-in, four-out rule being eliminated. There is also a small victory in allowing businesses in the program prior to June 2014 to maintain a 20% cap on the proportion of lower-wage TFWs who can be employed by one employer, and an exemption of the cap for seasonal industries until the end of 2017. We are encouraged, as well, by announcements around the global skills strategy, including faster processing of permits.

We are also very pleased to see the work being done on the Atlantic immigration pilot. One of the key improvements I want to point out here is the elimination of the need for a labour market impact assessment, or LMIA. It has been a problem for our members, and it is costly and a time constraint. Less stringent advertising confirmation requirements, as well as speed of processing, are another important improvement. We are very happy to see the addition of skill level C, intermediate jobs or jobs usually needing high school or job-specific training.

We do believe, however, that more consideration should be given to businesses' capacity to provide integration services for new Canadians as that demand is being made upon them.

We are watching this program carefully to examine the uptake and the impact on the needs of those in the SME labour sector.

These changes can be a vital lifeline for many entrepreneurs, and CFIB has been making recommendations along those lines for some time, including our introduction to Canada visa program. We are supportive of the new express entry system that we have in this country, which allows employers to have a greater role in selecting immigrants. Unfortunately, a closer look at the details reveals that the new system will still not help employers looking to fill entry-level jobs that are classified as lower-skill positions. We are suggesting that employers with staffing needs at all skill levels should be permitted participation in selecting workers through express entry.

We proposed a bill of rights for temporary foreign workers, including such things as better documentation of working conditions, employer-provided accommodation and standards, and an internal dispute resolution process for employers and employees.

We hope to learn from the Atlantic pilot project, and we hope that some of the lessons we learn are applied to the immigration system more broadly.

Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to taking your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Morgan. That was impressively efficient and informative.

Ms. Juanita Ford, the floor is yours for seven minutes, please.

[Juanita Ford, Manager, Workforce and Industry Development, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador]

Good afternoon. Mr. Chair and fellow committee members, thank you for the opportunity to participate in today's committee's meeting. It's my pleasure to present to you this afternoon.

Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador is the tourism industry association for the province, and represents tourism and hospitality operators throughout the province in all sectors. As well, Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador represents its members on provincial and national tourism bodies, such as Tourism HR Canada. The mandate of Hospitality NL includes the responsibility to support the development of a professional workforce and improve the quality and market readiness of the tourism industry.

In Newfoundland and Labrador, there are nearly 2,600 tourism businesses, primarily small and medium-sized, that support the needs of a growing economy by providing the foundation of services and attractions that municipalities and businesses need to grow, attract workers, and leverage private investment, thereby supporting sustainable and viable communities in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The tourism industry is growing and is one of the most stable revenue-generating industries in the province. Generating more than $1 billion in annual spending, tourism offers a renewable resource and accounts for 8% of all provincial jobs—full-time, part-time, and seasonal opportunities. Currently the industry supports over 18,000 jobs in the province.

Tourism, like other industries, is experiencing a labour shortage and increasingly stiff competition for workers. In today's service-oriented economies, small businesses are providing the bulk of growth. The fact that approximately 80% of all tourism businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador are small, with fewer than 20 employees, is indicative of the industry's appeal to entrepreneurs, and offers attractive business opportunities to immigrants for cultural diversification and enrichment. Welcoming such diversity encourages immigrants to practise unique customs while still thriving as a citizen, resulting in increased immigration retention levels and community growth.

The projected labour shortages in the tourism sector are caused by rising demand for labour during a period when Newfoundland and Labrador's labour force is expected to experience a sizeable shift in its growth and composition. Traditionally, the tourism sector has relied heavily on young people as a source of labour. However, the rate at which young people are entering the labour force is decreasing while competition to attract younger workers is intensifying from other sectors of the economy. The industry will experience a shortage of people, in general, to fill positions, and a much more pronounced deficiency in skilled workers to fill positions.

In 2016, research conducted by Tourism HR Canada and the Conference Board of Canada projected that by 2035 potential labour shortages in the tourism sector in Newfoundland and Labrador could reach 15.2%, leaving over 3,000 jobs unfilled. Current projections suggest the tourism sector could potentially support more jobs than workers will be available to fill. This means Newfoundland and Labrador will experience one of the most acute labour shortages in tourism in Canada.

We know that if nothing is done to increase labour supply, the shortfall in revenue to the tourism sector in Canada by 2035 will be estimated at $27.5 billion. The economic and social impact of these shortages of skilled labour will hamper growth, decrease investment in the sector, cause higher operating costs, reduce profits, erode the sector's ability to compete, and cause inferior customer service.

The goal of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador and Tourism HR Canada is to hire Canadians first. We are working with partners to support and engage non-traditional labour pools to integrate them into the workforce. The focus will be on placing and providing programs and supports to support youth, aboriginals, and people with disabilities to find work in the tourism industry, but based on the research, we know that these initiatives will not be enough, and we'll have to look to immigration to fill these skill gaps.

Immigrants will fill jobs that Canadians are not willing or able to fill. The importance of immigration to economic growth cannot be overstated, and it is as important to tourism as to any other industry, with almost a quarter of tourism workers being immigrants, including 40% of all chefs.

The immigration pathways are too narrowly focused on NOC A, B, and O categories. Regardless of the totals, individuals with experience and skills in all categories are needed, with perhaps even a greater demand existing among those not currently well represented. Immigrants meeting unfilled job demands and possessing transferable skills, in other words, those outside of NOC A, B, and O categories, must be included among the recruitment mix for immigration programs.

Future program planning and policies must focus on jobs in demand for both current and projected needs over the next decade. Many occupations in tourism fall in the NOC C and D categories and are therefore considered unskilled. While many are low entry in terms of formal educational requirements, the level of knowledge of the environment, safety, communication skills, etc., is quite demanding, and such low-skilled jobs are essential to economic growth. For example, hotels require managers and marketing specialists, but cannot successfully operate without cleaners, servers, and maintenance workers. As advanced economies create highly skilled jobs, they also create the demand and need for more low-skilled jobs.

Public policy should focus resources on continued professional development opportunities, particularly education and training offered by professional associations, which are able to respond to labour market demands and employment needs more readily. Efforts such as the immigration pilot under the Atlantic growth strategy can help change this. Tourism businesses in Newfoundland and Labrador have engaged in this pilot. Currently there are 48 businesses in the process of becoming designated employers, most of them in the food service sector.

Enhanced programming for businesses to permanently hire foreign workers if they can't find Canadians to fill the jobs must be a priority. Enabling foreign-trained workers the right to access permanent residency is good policy. This should be in addition to existing provincial nominee programs that meet labour needs. Permanent residency will enable Canada to be more competitive in attracting qualified applicants from other countries.

Continued support for organizations that assist refugees and immigrants, particularly on the education, training, and employment services front, is required, as are strengthened links to organizations and businesses that can help new Canadians enter the workforce. To grow our provincial population and achieve long-term social and economic success, efforts are required to embrace initiatives and industries that contribute to quality of life, offer family-friendly employment opportunities, and support economic diversification and growth throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Atlantic Canada.

The tourism industry offers such opportunities and benefits. Tourism offers gainful, flexible employment and entrepreneurship opportunities throughout all areas of Atlantic Canada that are appealing to residents, expatriates, and immigrants—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ten seconds, please.

[Juanita Ford]

On behalf of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador, I'd like to thank the standing committee for asking us here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Ford.

Mr. Navarro-Génie, you have seven minutes, please.

[Marco Navarro-Génie, President and Chief Executive Officer, Atlantic Institute for Market Studies]

Mr. Chairman and honourable members of the committee, good afternoon. I am grateful for the chance to appear before you on behalf of the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies this afternoon.

Alarm bells have been sounding about the declining population of Atlantic Canada. The region is aging rapidly, adding to the pressures of economic decay, and without higher productivity, fewer people means a shrinking economy, greater fiscal burden, rising costs of certain economic scales. There is no significant population growth, but health care and education costs, for example, keep rising and rising.

Atlantic Canadians are proud of their cultural achievements and place a premium on them, but the economy is often placed behind cultural concerns and that will have to change for the sake of the economy and culture alike. Theatres, parks, schools, hospitals and festivals may all be important, and more important than money, but we need wealth to sustain them, and we need wealth to maintain them. The same can be said for immigration.

The Atlantic Institute for Market Studies favours and supports greater immigration. We need more people, but we are concerned that without correcting public policies that have set the region on this current path, and without removing obstacles to a more vibrant economy, retaining immigrants will continue to be difficult. The question needs closer scrutiny and it is currently under study at our institute.

We know that the population challenge in the region is caused by a decline in natural growth and the outmigration of the native, largely young, resident population. This young segment flees in search of economic opportunity that they do not find here. Hoping that the immigrant population will stay and solve our population challenges while the native residents continue to leave is no strategy for demographic renewal. The hemorrhage must be contained. People emigrate in search of prosperity for themselves and for their children. They often are willing to endure immediate sacrifice for the sake of future prosperity for their children, but unfortunately, future prosperity in Atlantic Canada is in question and a significant portion of the demographic challenge is tied to economic stagnation.

The region's economies are the most taxed jurisdictions in the country. We have labour laws that are often hostile to businesses and to investment. Energy is unnecessarily expensive. We prohibit economic activities, such as hydraulic fracturing, that are lawful elsewhere, while our children leave for employment in the very economic activities that we seem to want to ban here.

Governments, with the exception of New Brunswick, have bloated public services that act as economic ballast and impede effective economic change. We have, in addition, a paternalistic economic populism from political leaders that keep spending money we do not have and will not have, adding to the greater fiscal uncertainties.

Someone told me not very long ago that Nova Scotians may be friendly but not welcoming. Maybe it is in this realization we have sought to make immigrants feel more welcome, and this is as it should be. These are good developments. This alone will not increase immigrant retention. The point is the economy. The region needs to right its economic ship, a feat onto itself when we have a federal government determined to continue to spend more money than we have.

Atlantic Canada needs a policy regime that encourages private economic growth, reduces government and its spending, eliminates the ample diet of subsidies we have here, is more competitive, reduces barriers to trade and commerce across provincial borders, and becomes the most desirable place to invest in the country. Tinkering at the edges, such as we are, to attract more people and investment will not do in an age in which we have to compete with the rest of the world.

With immigration in mind, our recommendations are that the federal government encourage entrepreneurship and productivity in the region through the following policies:

It should slowly reduce equalization payments, while gradually letting provinces keep all of the intake of the HST. This is achievable.

It should set a legislative framework to allow Atlantic provinces to create a small number of free economic zones within the region's boundaries.

The federal government should also try to encourage Atlantic regional governments to join the new west partnership. This is an idea that we have been trying to advance for quite a while.

We would like the federal government to encourage the Atlantic regional governments to abandon most forms of business subsidies in the region.

If we need to attract more immigrants, and we do, we should also try to attract more American immigrants to Atlantic Canada. The situation is nearly perfect at the moment. With much economic and political uncertainty south of the border at present, it is time to explore the opportunity that highly skilled Americans want to move north under the right conditions. The federal government should assist by making the process of immigration as simple as possible.

I would conclude by rearticulating the original point. Without a solid economic ground onto which we can welcome more of the badly needed immigrants to Atlantic Canada, current immigration policy will not be as successful. Without it, Atlantic Canada may continue to be simply an additional training ground for new Canadians and their revolving door entry into the country.

Thank you very much. Merci.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. Navarro-Génie.

Mr. Tabbara, you have seven minutes, and I understand you'll be splitting your time with Ms. Zahid.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Navarro-Génie, you mentioned briefly in your statement international students and American immigration. One thing I want to point out is that in my region, the tri-cities are referred to in Canada as a high-tech sector. They're continually looking for international students to come to our area to learn at the University of Waterloo in engineering and various programs, and then they integrate well into the high-tech sector. It boosts our economy and our region flourishes.

This has worked in our area. It has helped us. We've tried to reduce processing times for international students so they can be more successful and they can come here more quickly, and foreign workers can as well. Can you give us an example of what you just mentioned with international students, and how immigration would help in the Atlantic provinces?

[Marco Navarro-Génie]

A concerted effort from the universities in Atlantic Canada is a very well-oiled machinery to attract more international students.

The reference I made was that we must attract American immigrants. I wasn't talking precisely about students in that sense. Certainly, we view American students as international students, but they're not immigrants in that sense.

My exhortation is that, given the present conditions in American politics and significant anxiety among certain sectors of the population, we should not be shy to exploit those anxieties and try to see if we can generate more desire among Americans, especially the highly qualified, to move to Atlantic Canada.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Ford, the temporary foreign worker program has been a tool in the tourism and hospitality industry to fill labour shortages. By 2025 potential labour shortages in the tourism sector in Newfoundland and Labrador are projected to be in excess of 13.4%.

In your opinion, would the Atlantic immigration pilot program be able to address these predicted shortages?

[Juanita Ford]

They will in some cases, because you're letting in class C, but there are still occupations in the D class for front-line food servers who won't be able to come in through the pilot. Those are the ones who are relying on the temporary foreign workers for the most part to relieve those pressures. If we can't get more of those classes in, the temporary foreign worker program might not meet our needs.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Then are you looking at other programs to help?

[Juanita Ford]

Yes, we are.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Okay.

Mr. Navarro-Génie, you discussed immigration in Atlantic Canada on CTV a couple of months back, stating it can help boost the economy. Can you elaborate on the needs and challenges faced by Nova Scotia with regard to immigration?

[Marco Navarro-Génie]

Yes. It's been a while since the word has been out that the decline in population here is causing shortages of labour for different reasons. There's a natural growth that is stagnant and has now become negative in Nova Scotia. As well, there is the issue of the flight of skilled labour from the province, which has waned somewhat since the collapse of commodity prices out west, but which continues to be a problem.

There is a need for technical and manual labour, and essentially for more people to come to the province if we are to grow the economy. You can't grow an economy if you don't have people, unless you have improved productivity. If you look at the productivity numbers in Atlantic Canada, you see they are among the worst in the country, so it is necessary to bring more people to the province.

My point is that we should try very hard to bring more people to the province, but we should also, in tandem, make sure that the people we bring stay. We don't have a significant plan for retaining immigrants, other than certain programs that will make them feel welcome. That's all very good, but the ultimate point I'm trying to drive at is that the economy is the fundamental factor driving native Atlantic Canadians out of the province, and unless we do something about that, immigrants we bring to the country, who have virtually no emotional attachment to the land, will also do the same.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Could you elaborate on that?

We're talking about wanting immigrants to stay, and the economy is a big driver. Would you also discuss other factors that might make new immigrants or individuals who come to the Atlantic provinces want to stay? For example, you have great post-secondary institutions, which a lot of people flock to the Atlantic provinces for. Maybe in the arts or maybe in other sectors.... What could drive more people to stay in the Atlantic provinces?

[Marco Navarro-Génie]

We have great universities, a great culture, and wonderful natural settings, all of which attract people. The issue is keeping them. The only thing that will keep them and generate the wealth we need to be able to pay for the universities and the infrastructure we have is an expanding, consistent, and sustainable economy.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Will it be Mr. Tilson or Ms. Rempel?

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Ms. Rempel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To all three of the witnesses, thank you for your presentations. I think it's very important for us to consider, as was just mentioned, long-term economic growth in terms of the context of sustainable immigration.

The TFW issue, I think, is one that's very pertinent and relevant. Frankly, I think it's probably worthy of another study at some point in terms of reform and certainly in terms of the tourism industry. That's one of the potential bright spots for long-term economic growth.

The unfortunate thing with parliamentary committees, however, is we have limited time to review certain issues. There has been an issue that has arisen in the House of Commons very recently that I think actually begs our committee's attention.

With that, I move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee invite the Minister of Immigration, Refugees, and Citizenship to appear on the subject of the Federal Court ruling regarding citizenship revocation appeals, to obtain information on whether the government intends to appeal the ruling, and associated rationale, and that this meeting take place on an urgent basis given the 30-day time limit on appeals.

For my colleagues who are here today who aren't familiar with what I'm talking about, on May 10, Justice Gagné issued a ruling that materially impacts some legislation that, in my understanding based on media reports, will be before the House in a very short period of time, and those are Senate amendments to Bill C-6.

What's happened here is the judge has made a ruling that would have substantive changes to our immigration system process. I will actually note at this point in time that my colleague, Jenny Kwan, from the NDP, moved an amendment at the House of Commons committee when we were originally studying Bill C-6. I believe the amendment was rejected, but I'm not sure. I can't remember. My understanding is this is something that is going to be of material import.

My concern and my desire to have the minister appear in front of the committee stems from the fact that a few weeks ago, I asked in the House of Commons whether or not the government had the intention to appeal the ruling, because if the government was going to appeal the ruling or not, either way depending on how you feel about it, that would actually materially impact a few things, first of all, the committee's and the House's deliberations on Bill C-6.

If these amendments are to be read in the House of Commons before we rise for the summer, all of our parties and members will want to develop their positions on that particular issue, but if we don't have the minister here giving the rationale or in the House.... The response I received in the House was wholly inadequate. It was, “Don't worry; we'll get back to you in due course.”

By my count, if this ruling was issued on May 10, and there's a 30-day appeal period, that time period would be up on June 9. Then after such time, we really only have a few days to debate Bill C-6. I'm not certain what the government's agenda is to get it through committee or not, but this is a confluence of information and activity whereby I feel parliamentarians need to have the minister before committee on an urgent basis in order to proceed with the appropriate amount of diligence on the bill.

In terms of the rationale one way or the other for the minister to actually appeal this ruling, and the reason why I believe he should come to committee, is that the amendment in Bill C-6 says the court hearing is given to people facing citizenship revocation on the ground of false representation or fraud. The immigration minister would be required to inform them of their right to appeal that decision in the Federal Court. The circumstances under which this amendment was introduced raised a lot of questions regarding whether the amendment was pushed by the PMO, although supposedly independent senators moved it.

I think that's something that's valid. It's a question I would like to ask the minister prior to debating this bill in the House and certainly have the public and Canadians have a better understanding of prior to the minister announcing or letting the clock run out on the appeals process for this particular ruling.

In the same vein, the Federal Court ruling argues that everyone has the right to appeal citizenship revocation. In the 62-page ruling, Justice Gagné found the new provisions violate the Canadian Bill of Rights, which some have characterized as a quasi-constitutional document.

The decision affects more than 200 individuals who have lost their Canadian citizenship since May 2015 under the shortened administrative process, and many will now be entitled to full hearings and may be able to get back their revoked citizenship.

This decision addresses eight test cases that challenge the constitutionality of the changes made in May 2015 over the alleged lies on their residency or citizenship applications. The changes also barred them from reapplying for Canadian citizenship for 10 years after revocation. Again, the government has 30 days to appeal these rulings.

I've asked the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship questions in the House in this regard. To further convince my colleagues that this is something we should do, there are several areas of unanswered questions that I believe the minister should explain before the committee.

First, in regard to the existing backlogs, I would like to know if the minister is going to appeal the ruling one way or the other on the issue of judicial backlogs. An argument could be made that, if this ruling was not appealed and came into force, there would be an immediate burden on the court system. Unfortunately, this is a problem, given where the government has been in its appointment of judges.

If this Federal Court ruling is implemented and not appealed by the government, the Federal Court system could face challenges in resources because, in a Federal Court ruling allowing for an appeals process, there could be an increase in appeals that the Federal Court system would hear.

I would like to know from the minister how he feels this jibes with the current process in place. Right now, the Federal Court will examine appeals if IRCC erred in the interpretation and application of the IRPA, which is an act that covers our immigration processes in Canada.

From the IRCC website, the current process surrounding citizenship revocation is as follows:

The Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act (SCCA) introduces new grounds for revocation of citizenship and provides for a streamlined revocation process. Previously, the citizenship revocation process generally involved three steps: the Minister, the Federal Court, and the Governor in Council. Under the new revocation process, the Governor in Council will no longer have a role except for some transitional cases. The new process has two decision-making streams: the vast majority of revocation cases will be decided by the Minister—

So the minister does, in fact, have discretion in these cases:

—certain complex cases will be decided by the Federal Court.

I'd like to know from the minister whether or not he feels that the ruling essentially jibes with his already existing ability and discretion to make decisions in these cases.

I should note that the case management branch handles all cases considered for revocation of citizenship. Local staff are not involved in these types of cases, other than to alert the case management branch should information come to their attention regarding a case that should be investigated for possible revocation.

As this makes clear, under the current process, some special cases are sent to the Federal Court. The cases that currently go to the Federal Court are examined if IRCC erred in interpretation and application of the IRPA. This is an important caveat as it ensures that the errors of the department do not lead to revocation. It also maintains that people are not incentivized to lie on their application.

In terms of the minister's appearance before our committee, I'd again ask my colleagues to have him come here. If he chooses not to appeal this ruling, these two elements could materially affect the process in which citizenship is revoked in cases of misrepresentation or fraud.

I'll speak a little bit about why I think the minister needs to talk more—as do departmental officials—around the fact that people may or may not, under this ruling, be incentivized to provide fraudulent information on their applications.

In respect of the IRCC website, I would like to see the minister give a clearer picture of this actual process. When I read through the ruling, I found that the process has been interpreted in certain ways. The testimony was quite interesting. The website states:

A person under revocation proceedings remains entitled to all rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship until the person’s citizenship is revoked. Under the new model, the date the person’s citizenship is revoked is either the date of the Minister’s decision to revoke citizenship or the date of the declaration by the Federal Court. For transition cases that still require a decision from the Governor in Council, the person’s citizenship is revoked on the date of the Order in Council.

Returning to my point on the Federal Court ruling, which allows for an appeals process that is much broader in scope than the current mechanisms I've described, I would like to know how the minister plans to reconcile those two things should he decide not to appeal a ruling, and again what impact that would have on the Senate amendment in Bill C-6. I think it's important to consider what we already know: that the courts are facing serious challenges in existing backlogs in hearings.

Again, I would be interested to know from the minister, should we decide to bring him here, if he has had any consultation with the justice minister specifically on the issue of backlog. Many people have said the backlogs exist due to the fact that under this government, there is a growing number of judicial vacancies, which have contributed to a large number of serious criminal cases being thrown out of court. If we do not hear from the minister at this committee as to whether he plans to appeal the Federal Court ruling, then we must also think about what this ruling will do to add to the existing backlog of cases in light of the government's inability, so far, to fill judicial vacancies. As I've alluded to, this appeal would put extra strain on the courts, which are already strained by the judicial vacancies.

So many articles have been written on the impact of this, but again, I think it's so important for the minister to come to committee. I'm going to draw on a Toronto Star article from last year with the headline “Urgent need for judicial vacancies to be filled promptly”. In it Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin linked the number of empty seats on federally appointed court benches across the country—44 at the moment—to unacceptable trial delays, especially in the criminal courts.

I would hope that at this point, going into our deliberations on the Senate amendments to Bill C-6 as well as the potential decision to appeal or not appeal, the minister would have reconciled the words of Chief Justice McLachlin with his action one way or the other. As well, I think many of my colleagues here would like to know how that is going.

I'm looking and can't even believe this. So many articles have been written. I'm tempted to read them all to bolster my case. I might do that. We will see. Wow, so many cases have been thrown out because of judicial appeals, really a lot.

Going through another rationale for this, I have talked to a few legal experts on the ruling, and I think one of the concerns many of us share is that if this ruling.... First of all, going back to the basis of this ruling, I think a legitimate argument could be made that perhaps contradicts Justice Gagné's ruling that citizenship that was obtained through fraud—the provisions she alluded to in terms of rights for citizenship—don't apply as that person was never entitled to citizenship in the first place.

In many cases throughout the history of Canada we've seen massive citizenship fraud, and I believe that's the rationale for why these changes were put in place to begin with. I'm looking for the actual numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Rempel, while you're checking your notes, if you would allow me a small indulgence, I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing today. I know Ms. Ford has a flight to catch.

Thank you for your opening statements. They will help inform our study. You are free to leave.

Thank you to the video conference witnesses, as well.