:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. It is meeting number 36. It's Tuesday, November 26, 2009. The orders of the day are pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), a study of chapter 2, “Selecting Foreign Workers Under the Immigration Program” of the fall 2009 report of the Auditor General of Canada.
We indeed have as our guests today the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, who is no stranger to these rooms, and her colleagues. Welcome, Madam.
We also have Richard Flageole--that is the correct pronunciation, I hope--who is the Assistant Auditor General, and Suzanne Therrien, principal. I'm not too sure what that means, but maybe you'll tell us.
So welcome. As you know, our witnesses have an opportunity to make an opening statement, followed by questions from our colleagues. I thank you for coming to go over your report with us. Thank you very much.
We thank you for this opportunity to discuss our chapter on selecting foreign workers under the immigration program. As you mentioned, I am joined today by Richard Flageole, Assistant Auditor General, and Suzanne Therrien, principal, who were responsible for the audit.
[Translation]
Canada has an ongoing need for permanent and temporary workers with various skills, and it must compete with other countries to attract them. It is critical that the government programs to facilitate the entry of these workers be designed and delivered in a way to ensure that the needs of the Canadian labour market are met.
We found that Citizenship and Immigration Canada had made a number of key decisions without first properly assessing the costs and benefits, risks, and potential impact on other programs and delivery mechanisms. Some of these decisions have caused a significant shift in the types of workers being admitted to Canada. We saw little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy to best meet the needs of the Canadian labour market.
In addition, we noted that evaluations of the programs we audited were either not updated or lacking. In our view, until CIC develops a clear vision of what each program is expected to contribute and evaluates the performance of its current programs, the department will not be able to demonstrate that its programming best meets the needs of the Canadian labour market.
[English]
The inventory of applications in the federal skilled worker category has almost doubled since our audit in 2000. In December 2008, more than 620,000 people had been waiting on average 63 months for a decision to be made on whether they had been granted permanent residency or not. Measures taken by CIC in 2008 to manage the inventory by limiting the number of new applications--for example, processing only those that meet new, more narrowly defined criteria--were not based on sufficient analysis of their potential effects.
While it is too early to assess the full impact of these measures, trends in the number of new applications received since the beginning of 2009 indicate the measures might not have the desired effect. For example, by the end of June 2009, the department had not experienced a significant reduction in the number of new applications. Citizenship and Immigration Canada will have to monitor the situation closely and might need to consider other strategies to manage the inventory. Failure to do so could result in the creation of another inventory of new applications that would prevent CIC from processing these within the six to 12 months it has forecast.
In addition, the department's ability to reduce the inventory of old applications prior to the introduction of ministerial instructions could be significantly impaired. At the time of our audit, Citizenship and Immigration Canada was unable to determine when this backlog would likely be eliminated or to define what would be a reasonable timeframe to do so. Their latest estimate in 2008 indicated that the backlog might not be eliminated for another eight to 25 years.
However, by the end of June 2009, this particular backlog had been reduced to about 452,000 people or by 29%. This reduction was possible because Citizenship and Immigration Canada processed mainly old applications. The department started processing the new applications for eligibility only in November 2008 when the ministerial instructions were finally published.
In June 2009, the overall inventory, which includes both old and new applications, still numbered approximately 594,000. This represents a decrease of only 6.5% in the overall inventory since the introduction of the ministerial instructions.
[Translation]
Our chapter also identified serious problems in the design and delivery of the Temporary Foreign Worker Program that is co-managed by CIC and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations state that before issuing a work permit to a temporary foreign worker, a CIC officer must assess, on the basis of an opinion provided by HRSDC, if the job offer is genuine and not likely to negatively affect the labour market in Canada. The regulations state the factors to consider in assessing labour market effects but are silent on how to assess whether a job offer is genuine. We found that CIC and HRSDC had not clearly defined their respective roles and responsibilities in making this assessment and how it is to be carried out. The genuineness of job offers was therefore rarely verified. As a result, work permits could be issued for jobs or employers in Canada that do not exist.
Furthermore, we found that there is no systematic follow-up by either CIC or HRSDC to verify that employers in Canada are complying with the terms and conditions, such as wages and accommodations, under which work permits are issued. This creates risks to program integrity and could leave many foreign workers, such as live-in caregivers and lower-skilled temporary foreign workers, in a vulnerable position.
Also, weaknesses in the practices for issuing labour market opinions raised questions about the quality and consistency of decisions being made by HRSDC officers. After our audit, regulatory modifications aimed at resolving some of these issues have been published in the Canada Gazette.
[English]
Citizenship and Immigration Canada has successfully introduced a number of initiatives and tools to address some of the inefficiencies that we reported in our 2000 audit. However, despite our recommendation to do so, the department has not yet implemented a quality assurance framework to obtain assurance that decisions made by its visa officers are fair and consistent.
Finally, we note that Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada have implemented programs to facilitate the recognition of foreign credentials. At the end of our audit, the federal government was working with provinces and territories to develop a pan-Canadian framework for foreign qualification assessment and recognition.
Mr. Chair, we have raised a number of important issues in our chapter. We encourage the committee to request an action plan from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and Human Resources and Skills Development Canada and to follow up on what progress the departments have made in addressing our recommendation.
This concludes my opening remarks. We would be pleased to answer any questions the committee members may have.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Auditor General, I would like to first of all thank you very much for all the work you do on behalf of the people of Canada, work that I know myself and actually members of the Liberal caucus take very seriously.
I'm going to take this opportunity, very briefly, in two or three minutes, to outline some of the concerns you have raised, and I would like to hear from you a description of how you would describe essentially the state of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as it relates to the issues that you have raised. If I were a real partisan guy, you've given me an embarrassment of riches, but I'm motivated by a higher calling, which is to provide Canadians the best possible alternative.
When we look at your report, the audit expected CIC to “have a clear vision of how many immigrants should be selected under each category over a multi-year planning horizon”. Despite the commitments made in 2004, a national immigration framework, such as a “strategic roadmap” was still absent. That's one issue.
Then on the issue of strategic planning and programming--and this is from the Library of Parliament's briefing note--“The audit found that evaluations of the programs covered were dated and had not been implemented in a timely fashion that would assist in program development.”
On the issue of federal skilled workers, “the audit examines the backlog of applications, which had reached more than 620,000 people by 31 December 2000, as well as measures taken to address the backlog”. You found problems there as well. Then “The audit makes a number of observations and three recommendations related to the ministerial instructions. First, insufficient analysis was undertaken in the development of ministerial instructions”--and this of course refers to Bill C-50. And then “Second, the early evidence indicates that the instructions may not be meeting the goal of reducing the number of new applications”, and “Third...the audit found that the process and mechanisms for on-going monitoring and revision of the instructions are lacking.” Then, “Finally, the audit examines the centralized intake office for federal skilled worker.... It finds that the centralized intake office was implemented without sufficient analysis and has encountered some serious difficulties....”
On the provincial nominee program, the briefing note says that “little evaluation has taken place to assess whether the provincial nominee programs are meeting the objectives of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act”. As I said, there are many, many other issues related to temporary foreign workers.
You raised concerns with “the quality and consistency of decisions on labour market opinions” and “ found that directives were unclear or incomplete and that interpretations varied from one region to another and within offices”. The briefing note further states that “With regard to assessment of the genuineness of a job offer for a temporary foreign worker, the audit found that HRSDC and CIC 'have not clearly defined their respective roles and responsibilities', and that measures were not in place to systematically verify job offers.”
I'm simply listing these things for Canadians, who I am sure are viewing this program, because I know they care about Parliament and the work we do. I'm just listing all these things to get a sense of the magnitude of the challenges that this government and we collectively as a Parliament face in addressing these issues. In all the reports that you have written, and you have written many, where do you put this in the sense of a crisis situation? You've written a lot of reports. How serious are these issues?
I would say the issues are serious, because obviously Canada needs to have immigration to meet the requirements and the needs of the labour market. I think all studies show that with our demographics, the only growth that will come in the country is through immigration. With an aging population, we need these talented, skilled people to be coming into the country to fill those labour market needs.
I think there are probably two main issues that I would flag for the committee. One is the whole question of the strategy and the framework going forward. In the report we mentioned in one of the exhibits--exhibit 2.5, which is on page 12 of the English version--significant shifts in the categories, and we saw no analysis that would indicate that this is what is desired. Unless things are changed--and I believe there may have been some changes with the latest numbers that were produced by the department--the federal skilled worker program will go down to 18,000 people.
There's been a significant shift to the federal nominee program, which may be appropriate, but we saw no analysis indicating that this was where the federal government thought the immigration decision should go. There's very little oversight, very little understanding of what kinds of immigrants are coming in under the provincial nominee program. I think it raises the role about what is the federal government's responsibility vis-à-vis these programs. I think that's one issue.
The other issue I think is how to manage the applications. To me, that is a big issue. Even though the number of job categories has been reduced from over 300 to 38, there are still tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of applications coming in every year. Early indications are that this reduction is not having the effect that was desired, and the department is going to have difficulty meeting their target of six to 12 months. So it's a question of how to manage this in a more effective way. Is it reasonable to expect people to wait five years to get a response?
Of course, then there's the monitoring that goes on afterwards and making sure that the jobs are valid. But to me, those are the main challenges this department faces.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to you, Madam Fraser, and your team for appearing here today.
Before dealing with your most recent report, I would like to get back to a previous report that included a section on immigration where you stated, if I recall, that 41,000 individuals were facing a notice of deportation, or of inadmissibility, and that the agency had essentially lost sight of them.
You also said that it was difficult for the agency to expend energy finding them because there was simply no way of knowing whether or not they had left the country. At the time you stated that that was due, in part, to the fact that there were no exit controls in Canada. If I recall correctly, you have made no recommendation to that effect.
Can you tell me whether any news to this effect has been brought to your attention by the government? Do you think it would be advisable for the committee to consider the option of establishing exit controls in Canada? Would that be an advisable option? Should we carry out a cost-benefit analysis? There are inherent costs in creating exit controls, but there are also advantages to be had.
Recently there have been television reports of citizenship fraud: people sometimes leave the country for years while pretending that they are still here. Do you believe the committee should put some effort into this issue?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The report the member is referring to was issued in 2006 or 2007, I believe. Further to that, we have not carried out a follow-up, but I did point out that we have seen improved procedures, compared to what we had noted in the previous audit, where the department is carrying out more of their risk analysis, and individuals who pose a risk to society are more closely monitored. The department was being more active in tracking them down. So, we found that the situation had improved. However, I have obtained no result or information since. It would be something to ask of the government.
With respect to monitoring, that is really a political question. And, as you know, the Auditor General is prudent not to comment on political matters.
:
Right. I share your assessment.
I am concerned, among other things, with the issue of immigrant investors, who are, by nature, very mobile individuals able to settle anywhere in the world. When there are significant wait times, in my opinion, there is a kind of filtering process that occurs so that ultimately the most mobile individuals, those who are the most likely to go anywhere in the world could select another place where they will get a faster response.
I don't know whether you will be able to answer my next question, but perhaps you could give us some guidance. I often get the feeling, as an MP, that the wait time issue is almost used as a way to manage immigration. Let me explain myself. In general, within a system, for example, the health care system, there is a waiting period simply because there are not enough resources or enough money. So, people have to line up. The current perception with regard to immigration is that it is a control issue. Annual quotas are established, and the only way to reach those quotas, since a number of people want to come and live in Canada, is to put on the brakes and to maintain the waiting period.
:
Ms. Fraser, thank you for coming.
Your report basically said there is no plan, no system, no strategic planning, no vision, no quality assurance framework, no measures to improve the integrity of the temporary foreign workers program, and no monitoring. It's pretty damning.
What we have here is a huge temporary foreign workers program, involving over 200,000 workers, and yet you see the number of skilled workers is soon going to fall from 96,000 to 46,000. I've added the federal and the Quebec skilled workers. So unless you have seen some philosophical policy underpinning this, it seems to me to be driven completely by “whatever the employer wants, the employer gets”. Without an overall strategic plan, what kind of danger do you think we might see, say 10 years down the road, or even this year? What will happen to this huge number--200,000--of temporary foreign workers in Canada if the integrity of the program is not well protected? These workers can easily go underground if they can't find jobs anymore because there's no strategic plan, because they may not want to leave. That means we could have a large number of undocumented workers in Canada, and some of them might apply for refugee status. Then there would be a complete mess. You had a report on CBSA two years ago about that problem; this is going to be a lot worse.
So where do you think this is heading, and why is it that way?
:
—and the issues we are still burdened with in terms of that. But I'm not going to do that this morning. I want to point out, though, that from an overall perspective, we have given clear direction throughout the report with respect to a vision on foreign credentials, permanent residents for new Canadians, and also temporary workers and the program itself.
While there are specifics that need to be worked on—and I'm certainly not here to say that there aren't always improvements that can be made, there certainly are...but I see comments, such as on page 41, for example, that in terms of its processing of applications in missions overseas, the ministry has successfully introduced a number of initiatives and tools to address some of the inefficiencies that you noted in your 2000 report; and on page 38, where we talk about the whole issue around foreign credentials and that the government is in fact contributing to the recognition of foreign credentials.
I have two overall questions before I ask a couple of specific ones. Obviously you've had a chance to put the report together, and you've also had a chance to review the recommendations the ministry has made within the context of the review. I'm wondering if you could comment with respect to whether they are specific enough. Are the recommendations such that when you do a further review you would point to them to see if successes have been made?
It is correct to say that we have noted improvements in certain areas. Foreign credentials is certainly one area where we see that government is taking action to try to resolve a significant issue for many immigrants in the country. There have been recent developments on the issue of temporary workers as well—which I think is still on the order paper, actually—and we do see some progress being made in that area.
We are pleased that the departments have agreed to the recommendations we made in this audit. Obviously the responses published in the report are fairly short and not terribly specific, which is understandable. We would expect departments to prepare an action plan that would lay out actions to address these recommendations.
When we do our follow-up work...depending on the timelines the department itself establishes for accomplishing the various actions, we will generally re-audit to see if progress has been made. That is becoming standard practice.
We have not as yet seen an action plan from the departments. The committee could certainly encourage them to prepare one and ask for follow-up on a regular basis.
:
So you're referring to paragraph...? Okay, the title.
As the Auditor General mentioned, that whole issue is very important. It's been a longstanding issue. We have seen the government put two programs in place. We have the foreign credential program put in at HRSDC. We had another one very recently in immigration. It was still early, but those programs seem to be working pretty well.
One is a contribution program. There are a lot of players involved in foreign recognition: provinces, territories, professional associations, and employers. So the program is providing contributions to all of those organizations to facilitate the recognition of foreign credentials. The key role the government can do is facilitate since most of this is provincial jurisdiction.
We were quite pleased to see all those new initiatives taking place. I guess the most important one is the development of the pan-Canadian framework that all the provinces and the federal government are working on. The last discussion we had with the department says it's very close to completion. It still has to be signed, I think, by two provinces, but the intention was to announce that in the fall of 2009.
:
Thank you for coming. Certainly, your report brings to light a number of issues.
I have about five questions. I'll ask them, and if we run out of time, maybe you can respond in writing.
On number three of your report, you sort of state that the benefits, the risks.... You haven't seen a significant shift. There are workers in the backlog who qualify under the current minister's directives and yet these people are either encouraged to drop out or are not moved up. That is question number one.
In the same paragraph, you state that you saw little evidence that this shift is part of any well-defined strategy and that the programs were lacking and had outdated practices. CIC is knee-jerk reacting to problems it has, and it's not using outward and innovative thinking.
On number four of your report, you state that the inventory takes 63 months, which is five years. That's for skilled workers. Yet parental sponsorship applications are even taking up to seven and eight years. We move to have healthy families and have grandparents come over and provide the much needed assistance to the young ones to look after the grandkids while the parents are working. Yet this is taking so—
:
Yet they are not providing the assistance that is needed.
On number five, you say it will take eight to 25 years to clear a backlog and that it has been reduced by 29%. However, I am wondering if you have taken into account the people who have dropped and the number of cases that have been shifted from the post that they're supposed to be handled at to other posts. They are taken in order to be negatived or killed or demised. Specifically, I'm talking about stuff that has been taken from Damascus to Warsaw. We see Middle East cases in Warsaw, and they have been getting a lot of negatives.
The last question I have for you is on foreign temporary workers. Since this government took office, foreign workers have doubled while the skilled workers are still at the same level. Yet a lot of the foreign workers who are in Canada are not allowed after three or four years to contribute and make this their home. We send them back. I'm just wondering about the investment they're coming in and making. How is that reflecting...?
How is my time, Mr. Chair?
:
Good morning, everyone. Thank you for coming here to speak with us.
Ms. Fraser, you said that the plan presented by the department was flawed and that a strategy needed to be developed. I agree.
You also mentioned that the wait times had a significant impact on applicants, but also on their employers. You also spoke about changes to the number of categories. My colleague, Mr. St-Cyr, properly identified the source of this by confirming that these wait times were likely leading to that phenomenon.
In point 8, you said that many resources were devoted to assessing applicants, but that there are few resources to ensure a follow-up with employers to determine whether they were respecting the terms and conditions. We know that, for most programs, applicants are linked to an employer and not to a job, which in many ways puts workers in a weaker position because they could lose their job arbitrarily.
We have talked about the wait times that can be as long as 63 months when an applicant already has a permit tying him or her directly to an employer and that applicant loses his job abruptly. There are also abnormal delays for employees who would like to qualify for the same kind of position but with another employer.
:
Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Madam Fraser, for another thorough report.
Just for the record, I'll note that the report goes back to 2002. I was glad Mr. Bevilacqua decided not to be partisan, because this doesn't relate to any single government. It relates to governments that go back to 2002.
I see that the departments have agreed with every one of your recommendations, which demonstrates the quality of the audit. They are working to improve, but it appears that the processes themselves are in transition. In the private sector, we used to call that “continuous improvement”. In many cases, your concern seems to be centred on a lack of information. This seems to be a primary concern, a theme of the report.
It appears that things are moving so fast that the analysis hasn't kept up with the innovations, and the people at Citizenship and Immigration Canada have been innovative. I look at pages 18 and 19 of the report, and I see that there are at least seven innovations designed to manage the inventory of the federal skilled workers category and reduce the number of applications. Do you have any insight into why these innovations weren't as successful as expected?
Thank you, Madam Fraser, and all of you who are here.
The government definitely recognizes the need to bridge temporary and permanent resident status to retain skilled foreign workers with Canadian experience. That's why we introduced the Canadian experience class in September 2008.
In your report on page 28, I read:
We found that the work carried out by CIC to design and implement the Canadian Experience Class category included detailed options analysis, assessments of potential impacts on other programs, and a detailed risk assessment. In our view, this is a good example of how programming decisions should be supported.
I'd like to ask all of you which aspects of the program, in your opinion, are well designed and implemented. Can you shed some light on that?
This is, as was mentioned, a new category that was created in 2008, under which workers who come into the country temporarily, after a certain period of time—I think it's three years—can apply for permanent status without having to leave the country before coming back in. As well, there are international students.
This was brought in, of course, so that once those people were here, we wouldn't lose them by making them go back home and reapply. We found that the analysis regarding the introduction of this was very well done. There were considerations of various options. There was a good assessment done, and we could tell that there was a lot of thought given to this category before it was implemented. This is the type of analysis we would have liked to see more broadly.
We point this out as a very good example that we think can be applied more broadly. The department can obviously do it.
As we see in the report, the provincial nominee programs have grown quite significantly and are expected to continue to grow. They are not subject to the same system as the federal skilled worker program is federally. They are, as we mentioned in the report, quite diverse. Criteria vary from province to province, and even though there is a requirement that they furnish information to the federal government, that information is often lacking, so the federal government doesn't have a good understanding of what the various programs are and who is coming in under those programs.
There is mobility in this country, so you would expect much greater coordination, or at least an understanding of who the immigrants are who are coming into the country under the programs and whether they are filling the labour market needs today and also going forward. We would have expected to see that broader analysis done.
The overall case management system was a response by the department to a recommendation we made in 2000, dealing with all the technological difficulties. The project commenced in early 2001.
In 2006, the office conducted another audit on major IT projects: we had already noted numerous difficulties related to the system. So we looked at it and we noted quite a wide range of problems in terms of the definition, scope and management of the project.
Obviously, some things were important. For example, in 2003, when we separated the activities... we sent a number of things to the Canada Border Services Agency. This led to questions about various things.
The project experienced significant cost overruns. The scope of the project had to be restricted. Ultimately, it should be in place by June 2010. So we see the light at the end of the tunnel. Let's say that it was not a great IT development success story.
:
Chair, I think we first have to accept the reality that there probably will always be a backlog. Canada is a very favoured place, and there are always going to be, one would assume, a lot of applications coming in. I think the real question is how well we are doing at getting the right people in quickly. That goes back to ensuring that there is a good analysis of labour market needs and that the department understands the projections going forward and then assesses the job categories based on that analysis.
We saw a reduction in job categories, but we didn't see the underlying analysis as to why the categories were reduced to those 38. We would have expected to see that, and then very good tracking afterwards. That's what we are recommending now: to make sure that these new measures that have been put in place do actually have the desired effects, because we do not see a reduction in applications. If the targets are maintained at the same levels, the backlog is going to skyrocket, and in fact the targets may even be reduced; the projection the department had was down to 18,000.
There are a whole number of factors in there. They include labour market needs, the targets in the programs, how well they are working with the provinces, and whether they become even more limited in the applications.
:
Yes. This has not been one of the success stories in computer program development.
We looked at the management of large IT projects specifically in 2006. We looked at the global case management system, and we noted a number of problems, such as changes in scope. One of the big difficulties was getting the funding for the project. As well, there was a lack of people with the skills needed to do it, and the program was more complex than people had anticipated initially. There have been a number of challenges and difficulties along the way.
This has always been a very important system, because people in those missions are just overwhelmed with paperwork, and in this day and age, one would expect systems to be computerized. It is supposed to come out in June of this next year. It is hoped that it will increase efficiencies, but as Mr. Flageole mentioned earlier, in the intervening time there have been many changes and many advances in electronic processing, and the department will probably have to look at those fairly rapidly, because the system was developed several years ago.
:
I want to return to the issue around the relationship with the provinces in two particular areas that you identified in the report, not necessarily with respect to recommendations, but more as they were outlined in your review in terms of the relationship that the federal government does have.
There are two areas. One is the whole issue surrounding the change we made in legislation with respect to part 6 in the budget, Bill , which changed the point system. It made it more conditional upon Canada's economic need, Canada's need with respect to market forces, and how one would become a permanent resident in Canada through that application.
In that area, you spoke to the issue surrounding how those categories are arrived at--for 2009 there are 38 categories--and the direction we should take with respect to how we determine those categories. I found it quite interesting, because from going through the process and from being involved as a parliamentary secretary, I noticed how much detail we put into the work and the effort of dealing with stakeholders who could advise us, whether they were labour unions, public sector unions, provincial governments, or business. We went through an exhaustive list initially to ensure that the first time we went through this, we'd get it right, and second, that we had set in place a process that would allow us to make sure we were picking the right categories and in fact assisting the provinces, the territories, and the federal government in a way that's going to make it successful over the long term.
You were not critical, but you questioned how that process was going to work. I'm taking issue a little bit because the process I went through in terms of assisting with that and reviewing it seemed to be extremely exhaustive and detailed.
As we note in the report, the agreements don't require the provinces to get any kind of agreement or approval beforehand. They can pick their own categories. They simply inform the department.
There is work being done to try to do an overall evaluation, which is probably really critical as to how this system is working. In the agreements there is a requirement for them to provide information to the federal government on the retention of nominees within their jurisdiction, but we note in the report that the information is either absent or incomplete, so the federal government doesn't have a good idea of what is actually happening in the provinces.
As a minimum, we would expect that there would be some exchange, but at the end of the day it's the federal government that has the responsibility for this. How do they know if the provinces are even monitoring their programs well? There needs to be better coordination and better information-sharing. I think the overall evaluation is really important, and you would expect there would be more discussion about the job categories. Maybe they would not necessarily be directly in line, but if they have job categories that are completely different from the 38 federal ones, you would expect some explanation as to why that is.
:
I wonder if perhaps this is an area in which we didn't do a proficient enough job in terms of explaining how the process worked when you were going through it. I take it that we need to do more, but I struggle too, for example, when I use the temporary caregiver categories that you studied. Again, it was the follow-up: do we know if the individual who's received a job is actually being paid properly? Do we know if the individual is being treated properly? Are they doing the work they had agreed to do?
In these two areas anyway, I see some real difficulties for us. As a committee, we actually did a review of the temporary caregiver program, as you are probably aware. In fact, we just passed it again unanimously under concurrence in the House of Commons. There are some very specific recommendations in there that the committee put forward. In fact two recommendations, recommendations 4 and 5, actually speak almost specifically to the issues you brought forward.
The question I have is maybe more of a point than anything else. I understand what you're saying in terms of the ministry needing to reach out further to the provinces or territories, because they in fact have responsibility for it when it gets into the specifics, when it gets into the--
I have some numbers that came to us from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. I'm going to put them to you, and maybe you can tell us how this paradigm is shifting.
In 2004 we let 113,442 skilled workers into Canada. In 2009 we let in 103,736. That's a drop of 10%.
In 2004 we let in 90,668 temporary foreign workers. Here's the kicker, and my colleagues across the way should certainly look at this number: in 2009 we let in 192,500 temporary workers. That's an increase of 210%.
On the one hand you're saying that the inventory levels have decreased by 29%, and yet it's going to take 25 years. In order for the folks to look after their skilled worker needs, we have temporary workers, and these people are coming in for two to four years. They're not going to contribute anything to their lives after they leave, because part of their life is left in Canada. Did you run across something in your calculations that will provide an answer for this?
:
If I could respond, Chair?
The answer, as we say here, is to have a good analysis of labour market needs and to do the evaluation to verify that the programs are actually meeting those needs.
You mention a 10% drop, but when we did the audit, as we note in exhibit 2.5, there was a projection that it was going to go down to 18,000 people being accepted under the federal skilled worker program, which is a significant drop. That's why we say there have been significant shifts in the programs and significant shifts are being projected going forward.
Is that what is needed to meet labour market needs and is this the right direction to being going? We obviously can't comment on that, but we would have expected to see the analysis that would have supported these major shifts and an understanding as to how it was meeting the needs of the labour market. We would also have expected to see an evaluation of the programs.
I want to continue my questions on the allocation of resources in different missions throughout the world that have to impose a de facto quota on a geographic basis and even, indirectly, on an ethnic basis, since it is grouped by embassy.
I also want to talk about the problems experienced by some embassies where there are management problems. In Nairobi, for example, often files are lost; things have to be sent again, etc.
I have often wondered why the embassies around the world are processing these applications instead of doing it directly here in Canada. For example, under the Quebec program, applications are dealt with on Quebec soil by Quebec public servants over whom we exercise better control.
Have you already looked at the efficiency of this management model which is scattered around the world, with all kinds of individuals of different cultures and different ways of operating, in comparison to what it might be like if it were managed from Canada?
In point 8 of your brief, you talked about the follow-up of temporary workers coming here. When the committee looked at this issue, it made a recommendation to require a mandatory visit of temporary foreign workers after three months, not necessarily by government representatives, since this could be a cumbersome duty, but rather by accredited NGOs for that purpose. So, three months after their arrival here, they would be seen in order to ensure that they are working where they are supposed to be working, and to see whether they are benefiting from the right salary conditions, if the employer is complying with legislation, etc. This was what the committee had recommended. We will see whether we should follow up on this.
Do you believe that this could be an interesting way to ensure a follow-up of what is happening once a labour market notice has been issued and a visa has been handed out? In that way we could see whether the system is working properly.
:
It's 2012. It has really been a 10-year pilot project.
With a large number of temporary foreign workers coming into this area, there is obviously a labour need for lower-skills workers, but there's no queue for them to line up in, so they have to find some way of coming in.
Have you looked at the impact in terms of the numbers of people who are filing refugee status applications in Canada because they want to work here, they have a job here, their manual labour is needed here, and they want to stay here? That's why they're here; they got into the wrong stream. Because there is no stream for them to stay in Canada permanently, they went into the refugee stream.
Have you noticed that? Is that a cause for concern?
Does this category, the live-in...oh, so it's a different live-in caregiver program.
You also mentioned that in the live-in caregiver program there had been a departmental report that talks about exploitation, that they had trouble, there are problems that date back to the nineties, and yet there had not been much action, in terms of dealing with the potential exploitation.
In your mind, has the situation got better or worse because of the much larger number of live-in caregivers coming into this country?
In closing, I would like to speak to quality control of the process. You made a number of recommendations in this regard, both in 2000 and in 2006, but there does not seem to have been any follow-up. There is no framework to ensure service quality and especially—and I know this is a concern to many of us—fair processing of the applications.
When the applications are reviewed by our officers abroad, the criteria applied and the responses given should be relatively similar to those used everywhere else. It seems to me that the computerization of this process would be an asset, because the evaluation of the files using this method would be fairer and less subjective than on paper. In the latter case, the quality of the presentation, the paper or the documents is always a factor.