Evidence of meeting #70 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
7:25 p.m.
Liberal
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Ms. Rempel Garner, we will have to vote on clause 2 and then we will come to you.
(Clause 2 agreed to on division)
Go ahead, Ms. Rempel Garner.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Michelle Rempel Conservative Calgary Nose Hill, AB
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the clarification on the position of moving the motion.
For the interpreters, this is amendment CPC‑44. This would result in a new clause 3. I move that Bill S‑245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:
Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):
(e) specifying required timelines for citizenship applications to be processed by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to ensure reasonable timelines for applicants are met.
Chair, the rationale behind this amendment is that throughout testimony here, including throughout testimony from the department officials, particularly as related to the rationale for moving the oath of citizenship online, we have heard that there have been difficulties in meeting service standards for processing citizenship applications.
This is still problematic, and I think part of our deliberations on this bill were on some of the processing timelines that might occur, given the volume of citizenship applications as well.
The purpose of this amendment is to underscore the need to ensure reasonable timelines for processing of applications.
While I have the floor, Chair, I would just re-emphasize that the scope of this bill was opened up for amendments, and that is what we're doing. We're making rational amendments to try to strengthen this bill as well as strengthen the Citizenship Act. The intent of this amendment is to ensure that citizenship applications are processed in a timely fashion and that we are enshrining timeliness in the Citizenship Act itself.
Thank you.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think this is a really important amendment and I really support Ms. Rempel Garner's bringing this one forward.
We all know that we deal with the lack of timeliness in processing of applications every day in our offices. I think it's really critical that there be really specific targets set and that these timelines be known and then met by the department. It would probably eliminate half the work in our offices and in IRCC as well if we didn't have the long wait times we have right now. All of us receive daily complaints about how it takes months and months.
One of the hardest cases I ever had to deal with was that of a man in Saskatoon whose wife and young child were in another country. He had never seen his child, who had been born during the time he was in Canada. He was waiting for the paperwork for his wife. It had been two years at that point, and ultimately it took longer.
That's why I think it's so critical that we have these guidelines specified and the timelines defined. It's something that's really important, so I applaud my colleague for bringing this amendment forward. I implore colleagues to vote for it and support it as one of our amendments tonight.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
7:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
Thank you, Mr. Redekopp.
Seeing no further debate, we will go for a vote on amendment CPC‑44.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
We will proceed to amendment CPC-45 on the new clause 3.
Mr. Kmiec, go ahead.
7:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
I have amendment CPC-45 to move, Madam Chair. It comes after line 22.
7:35 p.m.
Liberal
7:35 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to read it into the record so the public is clear on what we're trying to do here.
It's that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following:
Section 27.2 of the Act is amended by adding the following after (d):
(f) requiring that service standards of the department in managing application backlogs are tied to bonus compensation at the EX-1 and DM-1 levels and above on an annual basis, where bonus compensation is withheld or wholly rescinded should the departmental backlogs exceed more than five per cent of total applications.
I am trying to find it on my computer here quickly, Madam Chair. I have the department's spending for last year on how much was paid out in bonuses.
As we know, the department's immigration backlog is about 2.1 million. It grew by about 100,000 applications during the public service strike. Right after the pandemic, it was at a high-water mark, since 2015, of about 2.9 million applications that were backlogged.
In the Treasury Board Secretariat submission—the departmental plans that are submitted by the department when it tables its estimates—usually there are sections in there that refer to the service standard expectations and how many applications they expect to complete by a certain threshold. The department has a target for every stream, and usually they try to meet it within a fixed amount of time 80% of the time.
However, that's not the experience that many of us have with our constituents. Probably 90% of the work in my constituency office in Calgary is on immigration case files, and many of those are related to backlogs. Backlogs cause problems for constituents. They mix up their lives. It delays planning for family reunification. It makes it very difficult to plan trips for families. It's very difficult to know whether you can grow your business or not when you're waiting for someone's work permit.
Although this is my favourite example to give, it is not a happy example. I have a constituent who came to me about a month ago. Her temporary resident visa application was from Tanzania. This application has been 1,113 days in the system.
I have another constituent from Nigeria. Her husband wasn't able to join her to celebrate Christmas in 2022. Every time she logged into the system, the delay kept increasing—every single time. When my constituency office and I would follow up with the agents, they told us we would have to wait.
I don't think that's acceptable. In the private sector, compensation bonuses are based on performance. The department, at this level that I'm referring to, the EX-1 and DM-1, is not performing up to the standard of my expectations.
A few months ago, I filed an order paper question in the House asking for the total amount being spent on bonuses. Over $30 million was paid out in 2022. Sadly, I don't have the exact number before me here, but quite a bit of money was spent by the department on bonuses.
For the benefit of my constituents and yours, Madam Chair, and I'm sure just like every one of us around this table, I would like to tie that to performance. I don't think that's unreasonable. It's strictly on the service standards set by IRCC and nothing more. I think tying the two together would give a very strong incentive to the most senior members of the department to drive the department towards excellence.
When you have an application backlog of two million, including all applications that are within the service standard and those that are way beyond the service standard, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that bonus compensation be withheld or wholly rescinded if the backlogs exceed more than 5% of total applications.
You could do it by streams. You could do it by overall numbers. I think it's reasonable to do. I think it's time that our constituents back home see some type of accountability from this department that has, as we know, doubled its staff since 2015 and doubled its budget since 2015.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
I see that Mr. Perkins is on the list, but I would like to give my ruling on this amendment.
Bill S-245 amends the Citizenship Act to provide for the acquisition of Canadian citizenship. This amendment, which has been moved by Mr. Kmiec, proposes to establish a review mechanism for bonuses for senior public servants at the levels of EX-1 and DM-1 or above.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 770:
An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the amendment is contrary to the principle of the bill. Therefore, this amendment is inadmissible.
Go ahead, Mr. Kmiec.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
That is non-debatable. We will vote.
Shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 7; nays 4)
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
On a point of order, because I think this may have happened before, you gave your ruling without perhaps the benefit of other information, including Speaker Milliken's ruling back in 2008 on the principle versus the scope of a bill. I wanted to refer to that ruling, because I believe that maybe one of our next amendments might cause that. This is more information—
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
This is not a point of order. We are going into debate.
I made a ruling and that ruling was sustained, so we will move on—
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Kmiec Conservative Calgary Shepard, AB
When I move on to my next amendment, Madam Chair, I just want to make sure that you give me a chance to explain Speaker Milliken's ruling on the principle of a bill, because I don't think your ruling is correct.
7:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Salma Zahid
When we come to that, we can deal with it. Based on my ruling—and the ruling was sustained—we will move to new clause 3 and G-10.
Go ahead, Mr. Redekopp.
7:40 p.m.
Conservative
7:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Redekopp Conservative Saskatoon West, SK
This amendment, CPC-46, reads as follows: Regarding new clause 3, I move that Bill S-245 be amended by adding after line 22 on page 1 the following—
7:45 p.m.
Liberal