:
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.
This is the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, meeting number 7 of Tuesday, April 13, 2010. We have two groupings today.
The first grouping will go from 3:30 until 4:30. Before us we have three groups, representatives from the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Legal Clinic, the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants, and the Canada Employment and Immigration Union.
Good afternoon to you all. Welcome to the committee.
We are studying immigration application process wait times. That is the topic. The process is that each group will have up to 10 minutes to speak, and then members of the committee will ask questions in seven-minute rounds. Probably that's all we'll have time for, the seven-minute round.
We will proceed with Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go.
You're on the air. Thank you for coming.
My name is Avvy Go. I'm the clinic director of the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, which is a clinic providing free legal services to low-income immigrants and refugees from the Toronto area's Chinese and Southeast Asian communities.
I had the honour of presenting previously on a number of occasions in front of this committee, and I would like to thank you for again providing me the opportunity to speak to you this afternoon. In my 10-minute presentation I will focus on family class sponsorship applications and the related agency applications.
I will begin with some general observations, followed by some comments about the delays we have seen as a clinic. Then I'll talk about what we think some of the causes are for the delays and our recommendations for change.
For more than a decade, family class immigrants have taken a back seat to other classes of immigration as the Canadian government took in more and more independent and business class immigrants to Canada.
With an ever-increasing number of people accepted under the temporary foreign workers program over the last two years, family class immigrants have to compete for processing resources with an even greater number of potential applicants. At the same time, restrictive legislative changes and arbitrary decision-making by immigration officers have made family reunification ever more difficult, if not impossible. Interestingly, while the minister of immigration is concerned enough about speeding up the refugee process to introduce legislative reform to the refugee determination system, the government does not appear to have the same sense of urgency around the unacceptably slow processing time for family class immigrants.
Delays in family class processing occur in both overseas and inland applications. With respect to overseas applications, the delays are particularly severe for Canadians who want to sponsor their parents and non-dependent children, whose cases can often take multiple years, sometimes as long as ten years, to process.
Even though the processing time of overseas spousal sponsorships is faster, delays can still happen, especially if the applications have initially been denied and have to be appealed to the Immigration Appeal Division, which could take years to complete. Also, there is no time limit imposed once the file is sent back to the visa office for reconsideration after a successful appeal.
With respect to inland spousal sponsorship applications, the application time after it has been transferred to the local office is, in our experience, about two and a half to three years. Within that period, the sponsored spouse is often not able to work and does not have any access to public health care, which could cause a huge financial burden on the family.
Then there are those applications that are submitted on H and C grounds by individuals who have close family ties in Canada and who are deemed ineligible to be sponsored. Assuming that their H and C cases are approved, it could take three to four years for the cases to be finalized.
To reduce wait time for family class and related H and C applications, we recommend the following.
First, resources in visa offices should be reallocated from processing temporary foreign workers and independent class immigrants to family class immigration applications, including those filed under H and C grounds.
Second, there should be increased resources for local CIC offices to process inland spousal sponsorship cases and agency cases.
Turning now to causes for delays, I'll focus on three particular areas.
First, we are extremely concerned about the proposed changes to the bad faith provision under the immigration and refugee protection regulations. Under the new proposal, section 4 of the regulations will be amended such that the mere fact that one of the purposes of the marriage was to acquire status under the act is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith. Parallel changes are also proposed for sponsorships of adopted children.
Even under the current system, it appears that many visa officers often deny family class and genuine family sponsorship cases because the officers see their role more as screening out undesirable immigrants than as facilitating family reunification.
There appears to be an unwritten presumption that all spousal sponsorship applications, particularly those from the global south, are bad faith unless proven otherwise. If the proposed regulation goes through, more genuine applications will be denied. With more refusals at the first instance, more cases will have to be appealed, which will then result in longer processing time for those who are in genuine relationships. So in our recommendation, we urge the government not to amend the bad faith clause of the regulations and to maintain the current two-pronged test.
Secondly, the financial requirement for sponsorship is also a factor causing delays. Because of this requirement, many low-income Canadians are barred from being reunited with their loved ones. While the sponsor can appeal the refusal on equitable grounds, the reunification will not take place until years after the application is first submitted, assuming the appeal is successful. We therefore recommend that the minimum income requirement, including the ban on sponsorship due to being a social assistance recipient, be removed.
Another barrier to family reunification is paragraph 117(9)(d) of the regulations, which bars Canadians from sponsoring non-declared family members. At our clinic we have seen many parents barred from bringing their children to Canada because of this provision. Dependent children are sometimes not declared in the original applications for various reasons. In the case of China, we have seen that many parents do not declare their children for fear of being penalized by the Chinese government for having violated the one-child policy. A number of paragraph 117(9)(d) cases came about simply because of bad advice given by immigration consultants, even though the inclusion of the dependent child would in fact not have affected the initial eligibility of the sponsor to become a landed immigrant.
Not only does the non-declaration result in the subsequent exclusion of the child from entering Canada, but it may actually lead to the removal of the sponsor based on grounds of misrepresentation. In our respectful view, the initial errors made by the sponsors simply do not justify the extremely harsh consequences that are being visited upon them while little is being done to penalize the consultants whose wrong advice was the cause of the non-declaration in the first place. We would therefore recommend that paragraph 117(9)(d) of the regs be repealed. Alternatively, we recommend that the Immigration Appeal Division be given the power to allow appeals on equitable grounds.
In conclusion, family reunification still is a core principle of Canadian immigration legislation. Reducing family class application wait times must become a priority for the Canadian government. This can only be achieved by investing adequate resources to process family class applications and introducing legislative amendments to remove all unreasonable and restrictive barriers to family class sponsorship.
Finally, I would like to end, since I have the floor here, by urging the committee to hold a public hearing into Bill C-11, because this is an issue that potentially will have an implication for the wait times for eventual family class members who are members of the refugee class as well.
Thank you.
First I'd like to thank the committee for inviting OCASI to present before you. OCASI is the umbrella organization for immigrant- and refugee-serving agencies in Ontario. As such, we don't work directly with immigrants and refugees, so what I'm bringing you today is based on the experience of our member agencies across the province, of which there are more than 200.
OCASI supports the recommendations made to you today by Avvy, by the Metro Toronto Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic. We've worked very closely on a number of these concerns for many years.
Family reunification, or family class sponsorship, has been and continues to be one of the biggest priorities for our member agencies and for the communities they serve. I am sure the committee members would have noticed the shift in trends from family reunification more than 10 years ago, from around 60% of applications to, I would say, less than 30% now. That's something that has deeply troubled OCASI members across the province. As a country, we seem to have moved away from a commitment to permanent immigration to growing a vulnerable population of temporary migrant workers instead.
When the federal government introduced Bill C-50, the new selection mechanism, and increased funds to speed up processing these applications, OCASI was concerned at that time that it would be done at the cost of family class applications. We're not really sure how the department allocates resources internally, but we've actually seen a drop in the number of family class applications processed and an increase in the processing times.
The number of applications has not declined. In fact, as Canada's foreign-born population increases, we are likely going to see an increase in family sponsorship applications. This is taking up a lot of time for front-line settlement workers, for our member agencies. They have told us that their caseload is really heavy in two big areas: one is immigration applications; and the second is finding a job, and finding a job pretty much for the purposes of establishing enough income so that they are able to sponsor family members.
OCASI manages the settlement.org and etablissement.org websites—the premier resource for immigrants and refugees, as well as many other people who work with them. I looked at the statistics on the website last week. I looked at the discussion group, just to see what was happening. The highest activity is in the area of immigration. That was not surprising, but what was really troubling is that sponsoring family members as a broad category had one of the highest numbers of posts, topics, and questions. There were 8,053 topics or questions in just sponsorship alone, and 10,665 posts under that topic. I'm not sure what the traffic was like on the French side, which is only a few years old.
The next highest was employment, but employment had only 4,359 posts, less than half of what we get for sponsorship. We think this shows the amount of interest, the amount of concern we're seeing from people who use our website.
We are deeply troubled that we're seeing this shift in de-prioritizing family class applications at the same time we're seeing an increasing number of immigrants from countries with predominantly racialized populations, countries such as China, India, Pakistan, the Philippines, and so on. We're also deeply concerned that the applications in the family refugee categories appear to be low priorities for the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
So we are pleased that Minister Kenney talked recently about increasing the number of privately sponsored refugees and speeding up the refugee process in Canada, but it's regrettable that there isn't the same sense of urgency around the appallingly slow process for those trying to sponsor family members. Instead, what we have heard is a proposal to amend the IRPA regulations as they apply to spousal sponsorship, and one that might cause further problems and delays.
In that context, we are really pleased that this committee has taken up this topic for study.
The workers at our member agencies are finding that immigrants and refugees are increasingly seeking their help to navigate the delays in family class sponsorship. They have to wait three to four years or more, in many cases, to sponsor dependent children and parents.
The processing times for spousal sponsorship appear to be relatively fast when things go well. When things don't go well and the sponsorship is refused, it appears to take years to reunite with a spouse.
What front-line workers are seeing is the impact of that. The process is incredibly expensive for most applicants. They have to pay the processing fee and the right-of-landing fee, and then they have to find additional money to pay for DNA tests and to repeat the medical tests, because when the file is delayed, the tests expire and they have to redo them. For many, there's the additional cost and the burden of time to travel to the testing site and to the city where the Canadian visa post is located. In countries with limited travel infrastructure and restrictions on freedom of movement, family members face difficulties that cannot be solved by time or money. So in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Sri Lanka, front-line workers increasingly see that their clients are having difficulties having the files processed.
In many cases, the sponsor simply gives up. Others have lived through the terrible experience of having a family member pass away while their file is still stuck in the system. Many have said that the wait and the uncertainty of not knowing when, if ever, they will see their loved ones makes it very difficult to cope. The uncertainty affects their mental and emotional health, and it has a significant economic impact.
Many applicants have found that while the processing time for sponsoring a spouse is relatively fast, sometimes the spouse is deemed inadmissible by the visa office for a variety of reasons, and appealing a rejected application takes several years. In the interim, the sponsor in Canada as well as the sponsored spouse have to deal with the mental, emotional, and social implications of having their relationship doubted and questioned by a Canadian visa office. They also have to invest a significant amount of time and resources in pursuing the sponsorship until they are reunited, which could happen several years later.
Community workers have noted that the delays create and exacerbate tensions between the spouses and family members. Many of the immigrants experiencing delays are from racialized communities, particularly those that are overrepresented among the working poor. They incur major debts to pay legal costs, to pay for telephone calls, and to travel overseas and back to see the separated family member. Community workers have also found that once the family is eventually reunited, they struggle with the estrangement between spouses and particularly between children and their parents.
We strongly recommend that the department increase resources allocated to processing these applications at both inland and overseas visa posts. We recommend that CIC also increase resources to process H and C applications to reduce the wait times and burden on these applicants.
I'd like to take a bit of time to refer to three other barriers that Avvy has already referred to. I'm going to kind of zip through them.
One of the things that community workers are noticing is that income is a huge barrier. According to IRPA, applicants have to meet the minimum income requirement. That's a burden for many of their clients who are overrepresented among the poor, including the working poor. They're the ones who are most often not able to sponsor family members. The majority of them are from racialized communities, and that's deeply troubling for OCASI. Many first sponsor a spouse and wait several years until their combined incomes are sufficient to sponsor a child or parents. It also presumes that they are able to leave their children or parents with another adult they can trust, and that's not always a possibility. The arrangement is fraught with difficulty and tension and it causes untold worry on both sides.
We recommend that the minimum income requirements, including the ban on sponsorship due to receipt of social assistance, should be removed from IRPA and its regulations.
We are also deeply concerned about the proposed changes to section 4 of the IRPA regulations on bad faith, again something the clinic already referred to. The change proposed would affect both sponsored spouses and adopted children. It could increase the forced separation of many families, increase processing times, and create delay.
As stated earlier, many genuine spousal sponsorship applications and sponsorship of adopted children are already being rejected by overseas visa offices. In many instances, there is a seeming bias against applicants for a variety of reasons on the part of the visa office.
Good afternoon. My name is Jeannette Meunier-McKay, and I am the national president of the Canada Employment and Immigration Union, a component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
Amongst our 20,000 members are the workers at the Sydney, Nova Scotia, case processing centre of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. With me, as Mr. Tilson said, I have Wilf MacKinnon, the president of our Sydney local and a worker in the case processing centre, and Alan Lennon, our staff coordinator.
The presentation I will make will be our view of the effects of the loss of jobs in Sydney on the Canadian public, and we'll be happy to answer questions after.
The Sydney CPC has two permanent lines of business: permanent resident cards and citizenship. There is also a pilot project called the foreign skilled worker centralized intake office. It is important to keep in mind that within the Sydney operation, many positions are filled by individuals who are acting in positions other than their substantive positions. So when, for example, people are let go from a mailroom, it may appear that they are being replaced, but they are being replaced by workers returning to their substantive positions and vacating higher-level positions. Therefore, it is critical to keep in mind the overall level of staffing in each of the Sydney lines of business and not be misled by a shell game of moving workers around in order to appear to have addressed critical staff shortages.
Within Citizenship, the centre processes applications for citizenship and applications for proof of citizenship. All applications for citizenship go first to the Sydney centre. The mail is received by clerical workers, who open, sort, and stream the mail to appropriate lines of production. Applications are checked by agents for completeness, signature, dates, documentation, residency requirements, and so on. Sometimes clients are contacted directly to ensure the completeness of the file.
Once Sydney is satisfied with the file, it is sent to a local CIC office, where testing is administered and citizenship oaths are administered and a new citizen receives their card. The above process can't occur until Citizenship in Sydney has done the work. Only then is the file returned to Sydney for archiving. The Citizenship mailroom staff is being reduced from 45 to seven, although it may be the case that individuals who are acting in other positions will be returning to the mailroom.
In any case, the reduction of staff at this initial stage will slow down the flow of applications for citizenship into production. In addition, 13 positions are being reduced in the unit that actually produces the citizenship cards. The result will be that permanent residents will have to wait longer to get their citizenship documents and therefore will have to wait longer to begin to reunite their families and to become full participants in Canada. Given that at present it takes 18 months to two years to process a citizenship application, it should be unacceptable to increase, and not decrease, the processing time.
For those who are granted permanent residency in Canada, they require a permanent resident card, which is the only acceptable proof of permanent resident status in Canada. Applications for such cards arrive in Sydney from various ports of entry as immigrants land in Canada and take up residency. They are initially processed through the PRC mailroom, where they are opened, sorted, and streamed. Electronic requests for cards are created and sent to Canada Bank Note, which produces the cards.
Permanent resident cards are typically valid for five years. Renewal applications go through the PRC mailroom and then to the agents, who review the application and residency requirements and, if all right, make the request for a new card. Without this card, permanent residents do not, for practical reasons, have status within Canada. Without it, they cannot apply for or renew social insurance number cards, provincial health services, and so on.
[Translation]
On average, 3,500 applications are received a week and, after several years of overtime and extra shifts, the inventory available at any given time in the centre is 25,000 to 30,000 applications for processing.
The cutbacks in the mailroom for the line of business from 15 to five are mirrored by a cut in the agent community from 36 to 20 or some other combination of cutbacks in the mailroom and in the agent community. The cutting of the staff complement means that any re-juggling of staff will not get around the obvious conclusion—lower production levels and longer waits for individuals needing this vital piece of identification.
The foreign skilled workers pilot project deals with applications within the economic class of immigrants. It is a program that was set up to allow prospective permanent residents access to faster processing if they can prove they have training and experience in any of the 38 targeted, high-demand occupations. According to the Toronto Star of March 29, 2010, there are 600,000 applicants in the system with waiting times of seven to eight years. To facilitate processing, an agent in Sydney reviews the application, and provides the applicant with either a negative assessment, effectively stopping the process, or a positive assessment, which allows the applicant the opportunity to make their case to an officer at a visa post overseas.
There are plans to let go 22 workers from this project. In addition, a significant number of the workers in this project are permanent employees of the other business lines in Sydney and are 'on loan' to this project. Obviously, if there are lay-offs in the other business lines, then there will be reason to return these individuals to their substantive positions compounding the effect of lay-offs to the foreign skilled workers section. If for some reason such staff are not returned, then the negative impact on the other business lines will be even more significant.
[English]
It is also worth noting that Sydney and Cape Breton have serious economic problems, and the jobs at the case processing centre contribute significantly to the economic lifeblood of the community. While we would not advocate job loss in any community in Canada, it seems unnecessary to focus the loss of jobs on the CIC in Sydney, given the area's economic history and situation. Clearly, the federal public service is in trouble across the country. The proposed freeze on departmental budgets means that costs, including staff, will have to be cut back to incorporate rising costs for departments. This will affect the level of public service available for Canadians. There is simply no way around that fact given the parameters laid out in the budget. However, increasing wait times for immigrants and permanent residents should not be a viable public policy initiative, even in times of belt tightening and federal deficits.
It is our belief that Sydney CPC should be staffed at a level appropriate to the immigration and citizenship workload it is expected to process. The present practice of understaffing and then relying on special allocations of money to hire contract workers to nibble at the backlogs, which nonetheless continue for years at unacceptably high levels, is simply inexcusable.
:
Mr. Eyking and the rest of the committee, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
As far as your question goes, CPC Sydney is proud to represent the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and we're proud to do the job we do. Year after year, by hook or by crook, through magic by our management team, we get the job done. We look after the potential citizens of this country and we look after the naturalized citizens of this country.
We did such a good job that when the permanent resident card centre was to be opened in 2002, Sydney was picked to be that pilot project because of the hard-work ethic of the people in Sydney and the job well done. The pilot project turned into a permanent line of business, and we're proud to be dealing with that segment of society as well.
Then when the department decided to take the foreign skilled workers initiative from our overseas offices and bring it to Canada, again because of the hard work and the commitment to a job well done by the employees of CPC Sydney, we were lucky enough to receive that pilot project.
Mr. Coderre was once our minister and came down to Sydney and took a tour of the facility. We showed that we do a very hard job. We do a very good job and we're proud of the job we do.
In some years we produce 400,000 cards to bring into the system, to try to nibble at the backlog, as Ms. McKay has alluded to. However, when you take our staff down to two people producing cards, that doesn't equate to 400,000 a year. We can't do it with two people producing the cards. We can't do it with 15 people trying to process 250,000 applications a year to bring to the production line.
We've proved time and time again that we are committed to the job, that we're proud to be members of Citizenship and Immigration, and we're proud to serve the people of Canada and the new citizens-to-be of Canada, and it's been proved by the two new lines of business that have been brought to Cape Breton, sir.
To the folks in Sydney, you probably don't realize this, but some of your strongest allies are actually staffers of MPs, because as soon as the news broke about the lay-offs, I got an earful from my staff about how this was going to be extremely problematic, that it was going to make things much worse, because as it is, our staff are getting an earful when they hear back from constituents who say, “What do you mean, 'eight months'? What do you mean, 'a year'? This is unacceptable”.
I just want to share with you the following example, though it isn't a specific case but a pretty standard and formulaic example. A constituent sends in their information to the Sydney CIC office in, say, November. They get a response in January saying there are two pieces of information missing. They supply that information, and by February there's been no feedback on the application's status. Then they send a letter in March to ask for an update on the status.
That's what it looks like for them, but can you describe for us what the series of delays looks like from the perspective of the workers? What happens once you receive that initial application? What would the delays look like?
:
In terms of family class sponsorship or citizenship--
Ms. Megan Leslie: What about delays with the PR card?
Ms. Avvy Yao-Yao Go: I guess the PR card is not as big an issue for us, because the person is still a permanent resident whether or not he has that card in his hand. But citizenship can be quite a big challenge, because, as was mentioned, it's 18 to 24 months; that's two years. That means someone has to wait an extra two years before he would be eligible for certain positions, before he would be eligible to vote.
Although it may or may not impact on the sponsorship issue, because you can still sponsor families from overseas, some people don't want to leave Canada until they become a citizen, because it's better that they go back as a Canadian citizen to the country they're returning to. So those kinds of issues can be a problem.
For us, the delay usually happens with the other things I talked about--sponsorship, H and C--and those are horrendous, because a lot of times, while you're in the process, if you're inland...the person waiting for the status may not be eligible to work. He or she is not eligible for health benefits, so it's a huge burden for the entire family just to wait around doing nothing, basically.
My name is Claudette Deschênes and I am the assistant deputy minister of operations at CIC. I am accompanied today by Paul Armstrong, director general of the centralized processing region at CIC.
I want to thank the committee for inviting me back. I had to think about that.
[Translation]
On a number of occasions recently, I have appeared before members of the committee to share with them the steps CIC has taken to deliver efficient and effective service, delivery that is integrated across our global network, facilitated by technology and partnerships, and guided by thoughtful risk management and quality assurance.
As members of the committee know, we live in an increasingly interconnected and complex world, and the hallmark of any successful government department is to constantly seek innovative ways to improve service to the public without compromising security.
[English]
We are doing a lot here in Canada and overseas to meet the goal and to make our immigration system work more efficiently and effectively. To that end, we have set service standards in a number of areas.
Although this list is not exhaustive, in 80% of responses to employers on exemptions from labour market opinions, it is our goal to provide an opinion within five business days from the time a complete request is received.
In 80% of overseas applications, we expect to make a final decision within 12 months from the time the family class application--and this would mean spouses, common-law partners, conjugal partners, and dependent children overseas--is received at the Mississauga case processing centre.
For 80% of new permanent residents, we will send an initial permanent resident card within 40 business days from the time the confirmation of permanent resident form is completed at a port of entry or at a CIC inland office.
We will provide all eligible applicants with a funding decision on their application within 90 business days of confirming their eligibility for funding or we will inform the applicants within that timeframe of any additional processing time that may be required. This is on grants and contributions.
Expanding our online services and increasing the use of online applications are just some examples of how we are achieving our objectives.
[Translation]
Our service standards can now be measured against CIC's actual performance and the results will be used to support our goal of enhancing service delivery.
We are committed to transparency, management accountability and citizen-centered service. Our service commitment is now outlined to the public on our website.
Thank you. My colleague and I will now be happy to respond to your questions.
I think maybe we should take up that offer to make Ms. Deschênes an honourable member of the committee. She keeps coming back to us time and time again.
I would like to go back in history, Ms. Deschênes, and tell you that in 2006, when the government was changed, 80% of applications at all points of service—this is for spouses and partners—used to be nine months. Today it's 12 months. That's an overall increase of 33%. For dependent children, in 2006 it was 11 months for 80%. Today, in 2009, it's 13 months, an increase of 18%.
For spousal, in 2006 and 2009, Africa posts were nine months; today it's 14 months. For Asia and the Pacific it was seven months; today it's nine months. For Europe, it was eight months; now it is 10 months. If you look at those increases, specifically in Africa, a 55% increase; Asia and the Pacific, a 29% increase; Europe, a 25% increase--this is for spousal.
For dependent children in Africa in 2006, it was 11 months; today it's 24 months, an increase of 218%. For Asia and the Pacific, it was seven months; today it's 10 months, an increase of 42%. For the Americas it used to be 10 months; today it's 11 months, an increase of 11%.
I'd like to share with you some horror stories, and this is for spousal sponsorships. For Colombo, in 2006, it was seven months; today it's 14 months, an increase of 200%. For New Delhi, it went from five to six months, an increase of 12%. For Islamabad, it went from eight months to 14 months, a 175% increase. For Kingston, Jamaica--and this is a real horror story--it went up from five months for processing 80% of the spousal cases to 15 months today, an increase of 300%. For Cairo, it went up from seven months to 11 months, a 57% increase. For Nairobi, it went up from 13 months to 26 months, a 200% increase.
Dependent children in Nairobi, from 19 months to 37 months--these are our children out there, and from that part of the world it's doubled, a 194% increase. For Pretoria, it went up from seven months to 21 months, a 300% increase; New Delhi, from 10 months to 13 months, a 30% increase; Islamabad, from 12 months to 18 months, a 150% increase. Guatemala went up from 14 months to 23 months, a 164% increase. São Paulo, Brazil, went up from 10 months to 19 months, a 190% increase. Kingston, Jamaica, went up from six months to nine months, a total increase of 150%.
Those are some of the horror stories. When you're talking about spouses and children, that's got to be a priority, not only for today's government but for any government. It's got to be a priority with the department when we're dealing with uniting our families. When you have some cases where it's taken up to 37 months, over three years, for a parent to see his child, I think that is totally unacceptable.
I understand that in some cases we have officers serving in extraordinary circumstances, but if an officer does not want to fill that position, I am sure if you were to make a call, there would be a lineup of people who do want to go to those posts and serve.
Those examples—and this is why the study was brought in—need to be addressed. I don't care who the minister or the government is. The onus is on all of us, and especially on officials, so that when we look at this, we either somehow have to get more resources or, if the resources are not forthcoming from the minister, you're going to have to come to this committee and say the resources are not there.
This can be an impartial.... This is not Liberals or Conservatives or NDP or Bloc. These are our children, our spouses. These are husbands and wives whom we are trying to unite. If that doesn't take priority, then we, as Canadians, people in this room who are asking you to fulfill the mandate of the government regardless of what they....
Certainly, there's been an example under this government that increases have happened. The obligations we have to unite families are obligations that go above and beyond the call of duty—to unite families and bring them together.
My simple question is, what plans does the department have? What are the department's plans? What direction has the minister given you to address the horror stories, the overall increases of 33% all over the posts, 18% for children, and especially increases in some cases like Africa, where dependent children went from 11 months to 24 months, a 218% increase? Please enlighten us and tell us what there is.
If you don't have the resources, how can we impartially, no matter which government it is, help you get those resources? If that means we ask the minister to go to the cabinet table to ask for more money, so be it.
I cannot hear these horror stories every single day. They keep getting worse and worse. I'm sure you've seen it yourself over the years, as an immigration official who has been there for a long time.
Ms. Deschênes, I want to go back to the Haiti file raised by my colleague Mr. St-Cyr.
There's currently one situation in the field. An outstanding job has been done on adoption: that worked very well. However, when it comes to reuniting families and bringing children from there to here, there is a major problem. What is happening at your end? This makes no sense! It was said that 160 permanent visas were issued. We're not talking about pathetic cases; this is being done on a case-by-case basis. In Montreal, they all come to see us; they go to one MP's office, then to another's.
So I'm asking that we be sensitive to the urgent nature of the situation because this makes no sense. The rainy season is starting and I've just received a report on the situation: it's major; it's total confusion. There will be other deaths. And then we'll have a situation on our hands. They haven't even finished moving the temporary camps.
What's the situation right now? I'm not talking about Quebec's agreement relative to the rest; I'm talking strictly from the viewpoint of mothers and fathers who want to get their children back. You've already taken measures concerning DNA, medical tests and so on, and that's fine. Now give some hope to those who are watching us—we're on television—because there is a situation right now in the field. We don't know what to tell them. In fact, we tell them we're working hard, but, in fact, we're not moving forward and things aren't working. Why?
:
What I'm getting from all this is that it seems what we have is a system that is a much more integrated system. Especially following 9/11, we have a system that is moving toward a computerized program that works better for people who want to come to this country and to make sure that we have a safer process.
We have no lack of individuals who want to come to this country. I would suggest to you that the success of the economic action plan in the midst of a global economic downturn and the fact that so many people are still excited about coming to Canada is a positive that we should be looking at.
The success of the Haiti mission and what your department has done in Haiti, responding to that, is something that should be an example used for all other future incidents or future devastating circumstances.
It strikes me that the department has had a heck of a lot to deal with in a very short period of time. There was a new act and a huge backlog that was left to us by a previous government. It strikes me that you have done an absolutely spectacular job in making sure that the interests of Canadians have always been put first and foremost.
Despite what you've heard and despite everything else, I want to congratulate the department on what I think has been truly remarkable.... Especially in the year and a half that I have been here, I have been nothing but impressed by what the department has done.
I can tell you in my office.... I have the largest riding in Canada, in terms of population, and I have one of the most diverse ridings in the country. My constituency staff has nothing but good things to say about the department. Sure, we'd like things speeded up and sometimes done a bit better, but I can tell you that we could do better responding to our constituents.
I just want to leave one comment because I know we are out of time. I just want to thank the department again for what I think is an extraordinary amount of work done, always putting Canadians first.
I'll leave you with that comment. If you want to comment, by all means do.