:
We can start this fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Thank you all for being here today.
According to our agenda, we'll spend the first hour studying the possibility of suggesting amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance. In the second hour of our meeting, witnesses from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration will join us for an information session, which will be followed by a question and answer period.
For this first hour of our meeting, which will run until noon, I'd like to remind everyone that on November 5, the Standing Committee on Finance sent us a letter inviting us, should the committee so wish, to convey our recommendations, including any suggested amendments in relation to clauses 174 and 175 and 290 to 293 of Bill .
In carrying out its work, the committee may choose to hear witnesses—which we did in the last two meetings— may choose to recommend changes or propose amendments to the Standing Committee on Finance, which will then take these into consideration during its clause-by-clause study of Bill .
For the first hour of the meeting, we have with us Mr. McNamee, Director, Immigration Strategies and Analysis, Ms. Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy and Planning, Ms. Imrie, Director General, Passport Program Transition Office, and Ms. Dikranian, Senior Analyst, Passport Program Transition Office. Thank you for being here this morning.
These witnesses are here to answer questions and provide clarification on any topic that may influence our decision to send amendments, suggested amendments or suggested changes to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Honourable members of the committee, the floor is yours. I'm waiting to see if you have any suggested amendments to send to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. McCallum, you have the floor.
I have one proposed amendment that I think you have received. I'll just read it. It proposes adding a subsection 10.1(3.1):
Despite subsection (3), an instruction given by the Minister under this section takes effect on the 30th day after it is given.
The idea here is that, rather than having ministerial instructions go out with zero opportunity for the public or for experts to respond, there would be a 30-day period during which the minister could get advice. During those 30 days, the minister might choose to change or amend the instructions. I think that's consistent with what Richard Kurland said in evidence about the lack of due process. I think it's also consistent with a letter from the Canadian Bar Association, which said:
The CBA section has concerns about the limited consultation on this important change to Canadian immigration law and policy.
It goes on in that vein. I think one could even argue that it's in the interest of the government. If one puts out instructions that one later learns are imperfect, then it's embarrassing, but if one has a 30-day period of consultation to listen to alternative points of view, the end product might be better for all concerned.
That is my proposed amendment.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[English]
On the subject of amendments to Bill C-4, a bill that the House of Commons has sent to the finance committee, I don't find it appropriate for us to be proposing amendments at this stage, because the bill is being studied at finance.
What I would like to see happen is that the bill be broken up so that we as the immigration committee have the power to study it. Right now we don't have the power to study the bill and I'd like us to have that power. At this stage, we're not really proposing amendments; we're proposing suggestions to the finance committee.
We're not doing a study of the bill and we're proposing to write a letter to the finance committee rather than make amendments. At this stage, I think I am fair in speaking on behalf of my colleagues in the NDP. We are saying that we cannot support this amendment or any amendment. We don't have the authority to make amendments, because of the process that's being followed here. This is in violation of proper due process, in my opinion. I can't support this amendment right now.
Thank you, Chair.
:
We are resuming the fourth meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration.
In this second hour, we have the following witnesses: David Manicom, Director General, Immigration Branch, Diane Burrows, Director General, Operational Management and Coordination, Jean-Pierre Lamarche, Director General, Passport Program Management and Strategic Initiatives, and Caitlin Imrie, Director General, Passport Program Transition Office.
I'd like to thank you all very much for being here. You will make an opening statement, which will be followed by questions. The floor is yours.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to be here today to answer the questions of committee members about the programs, policies and operations of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
My name is David Manicom, and I am the director general responsible for immigration policies. I have three colleagues with me today to help me answer your questions.
[English]
Diane Burrows is the director general of the operational management and coordination branch and can speak to our processing network and a broad range of operational issues. As I mentioned, I'm the director general of the immigration branch, with responsibility for program policy relating to all permanent and temporary-entry programs, with the exception of refugees.
Jean-Pierre Lamarche is the director general for passport program management and strategic initiatives, and will be able to speak to questions about the passport program, as will Caitlin Imrie, the director general of the passport transition office.
We have provided members with a large 11-page document that provides a great amount of detail on the operation of our department and the range of programs we administer. It will also situate some of the challenges and opportunities the department has.
I hope this document will be useful reference material for committee members, given that since 2006 CIC has embarked on one of the most ambitious rounds of immigration reform in many years. In the interest of time and to allow more opportunity for your questions, I would like at this time to provide a brief overview of the contents of that document rather than walking through it in detail, which would take up much of the committee's time here today.
Page 2 gives significant detail on our operational network around the world and in Canada, as well as on some of the service innovation steps the department is taking to modernize our processing network. This section gives the committee members a glimpse of the complexity of managing an effective immigration system. My colleague Diane can provide you with further details on our operational network.
Pages 3 to 5 give an overview of temporary and permanent migration to Canada, some numbers and categories, as well as what we do in the area of refugee protection. There have been some significant changes to these program areas since 2006, which are highlighted in the document. We would be pleased to respond to your questions about these changes. I would be happy to provide you with more information on temporary and permanent immigration programs.
Page 6 describes the immigration continuum from the intention to immigrate, to the granting of citizenship. This page offers an important reminder that the process of immigration begins long before an individual lands at our border and doesn't end until residents are fully engaged Canadian citizens.
Page 7 details how we construct the annual levels plan, which is Canada's main tool for establishing the level, the number, and the mix of immigrants accepted as permanent residents on an annual basis. If you wish, I can provide you with a more detailed explanation of our levels process.
Some of you may have heard of the planned expression of interest application management system, which was inspired by similar systems in Australia and New Zealand. We include information about how we anticipate the system will work in Canada when it's implemented in 2015. Let me know if you have any questions related to the proposed EOI system.
Pages 8 and 9 give an overview of our integration, citizenship, and multiculturalism programs.
Page 10 offers a reminder that CIC does not operate alone and that there are many other players involved across the full program spectrum, including other orders of government and the private sector. This page gives some perspective on the full range of partnerships we have.
Finally, page 11 gives some statistics about the work our processing network completed in 2012, including admissions of permanent and temporary residents. Diane is well-positioned to elaborate on these statistics if it's needed.
We would be pleased at this point to walk you through certain sections of the document in order to describe in further detail the information you see in front of you. If you wish, I could provide more detailed information on levels, planning, the expression of interest system, or general information on our integration, citizenship, and multiculturalism programs.
Diane can talk to you about processing times, application intake, and our overseas and domestic processing network, and I can provide further details on our family and economic classes, as well as on the temporary immigration of workers, students, and visitors.
Finally, Jean-Pierre and Caitlin will be to answer your questions regarding the passport program. As we don't have experts on all areas of the program attending here today, if we are unable to answer any specific questions, the department will be happy to follow up with the clerk as soon as possible. Otherwise, we look forward to any specific questions you may have.
Merci beaucoup.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you very much to our officials from Citizenship and Immigration for taking the time today to present these placemats—I think that's what we call them—that clearly give us an overview of what the department does.
It is very comprehensive and we deem it very important, not only for new members who have just joined the committee since this session began on October 16, but even for members who have been here before and who have an opportunity to refresh their knowledge of everything the department does.
We have a number of questions we'd like to pose, and I'd like to know where we are today with a couple of things that have been discussed in the past. Specifically, does the department have a sense of how many people, such as skilled workers, have abandoned their applications to come to Canada and chosen to emigrate to another country because of the backlog or wait times?
Do we keep statistics on that kind of information?
I'm looking at the first page of the package that you gave us. The graph is quite striking, actually. If we look at this, we see two big spikes, and they both happen around the two world wars, with immigrants wanting to come to Canada after the First World War and the Second World War. That's a striking. It's understandable that people would want to come to a country that respects freedom, democracy, human rights, and the rule of law, especially after a time of war.
Just taking a look at the last 10 to 20 years, the level of sustained immigration into the country is unprecedented in the country's history. Certainly, that has contributed to the difficulty in dealing with backlogs. Would you agree with that?
The accumulation of backlogs is not directly related to levels; it's related to a disjoint, if you will, between the levels plan and the department and the government's policies with regard to managing the intake of applications. For a number of years, we had no effective tools to manage the intake of applications. The front end of the system, if you will, was open-ended, yet we were obliged, as a department, to carefully manage output to the annual levels plan as presented to Parliament. That disjoint was large in some categories, small in others, but overall it lead to the very significant accumulation of inventories, which, of course, had a number of negative effects, both with regard to the service you provided to clients, the costliness of maintaining such a large inventory, and the loss of efficiency, and so forth.
:
Fantastic. I'm just going from what's on page 4 here. It says that consultations are under way, so I'm assuming they're still happening.
Could you please provide that information to the clerk as well, because you said your colleague is not here to provide us those answers? If you can provide details in writing as to the future consultation meetings that are still continuing, open to the public, transparent, and also whether labour and industry groups will be invited to participate in those consultations, that would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Now changing gears a little to the annual report to Parliament on immigration, it describes various measures that the federal government had pursued to eliminate backlogs and reduce processing times, including, of course, limiting or delaying the intake of new applications, terminating applications from previous years, and creating centralized management processes. This is page 6 and 7 of the report.
What impact have these measures had on the efficiency of the programs that had been experiencing significant backlogs? How many applicants have had their applications terminated? How many applications have been delayed?
And thank you to the officials for being here.
My first statement is a comment on a question. In view of the statement by the minister in the House a couple of weeks ago that the average overall waiting time or processing time was 12 months, it's interesting to look at page 11, where we see that the true number is 29 months overall, 37 months for family class, 53 months for parents and grandparents, which is exactly what I said at the time. So it's confirmed by the department's numbers, which is nice to see.
My first question has to do with parents and grandparents. I believe that, as of January 1, 5,000 new applicants will be allowed. My question is this. How long do you think it will take for those applications to be fully made? Some have said it will take a matter of hours, or at most a matter of days. Do you have any idea of the length of time it will take for those application spots to be filled?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have questions about two topics that I care enormously about: refugees and workers selected to immigrate to Canada.
With respect to refugees, I just want to give Syrians as an example. The government reported that Canada was going to host 1,300 Syrian refugees, but that Ottawa would only commit to taking care of 200 of them. The others would have to be taken care of by a group of individuals or corporations that would be responsible for their integration. Those sponsors are from the private sector. But it doesn't say how long those sponsors have to meet the refugees' needs. It seems to me that it used to be for two years.
Now, on page 5 of the document, the paragraph titled “Resettlement from Outside Canada” indicates that “Private sponsors are groups or corporations that have signed an agreement with Canada's Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. In this agreement, they promise…” and so on. But how long are they committed? There's no answer; it isn't clear.
The second part of my question has to do with integrating and hosting immigrants. When people apply on their own, it's because they are already independent. However, people who come to Canada as refugees have experienced fairly violent situations in their country of origin. So they are in a state of shock and everything that entails.
Budget 2013 cuts funding to community agencies that host refugees. Hosting these refugees involves the government, the province, but there are the community agencies as well. Has the department provided anything in the budget to help these agencies that host immigrants? Often these agencies are the ones that go and find French or English courses for newcomers and help them find a school for their children. They also seek psychological help for those who need it.
The problem is that these organizations are no longer receiving assistance. What measures is the Department of Citizenship and Immigration going to take in that respect? Then I'll come back to my question about workers.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank our guests for being here and for showing such solid knowledge of these fairly complex statistics.
I would like us to look at three very important parts of the immigration program. First, there are the labour needs. Our minister told us two days ago that we must use immigration to meet our needs because there is a great shortage of workers here in Canada.
Second, Mr. Manicom said that integrating our immigrants was obviously very important.
Third, there's the decrease in backlogs. Unless I'm mistaken, the previous Liberal government reduced immigration by 32%, but in the past five years, we've increased it by 7%, which shows that this government is taking this file seriously, when it comes to labour needs.
You said that integration was a good thing and that it was obvious. However, for 13 years, the Liberal government froze settlement services. Here, we've seen an increase in settlement services.
There's also the backlog of skilled workers. We've seen a significant improvement. There were 487,000 people previously, but you just told us that the figure is now 65,000 people.
If these bold changes had not happened, what would have happened to the immigration program?
Mr. Manicom, could you respond?
:
It's a challenging question for a public servant to answer.
Specifically, I can respond that it is correct that the overall settlement funding envelope did increase very dramatically from about $200 million to $600 million between 2005 and 2006. That's not counting the settlement funds provided to Quebec, which bring the total up to about $900 million.
I could confirm that had we not taken steps to begin to manage application intake, the application backlogs, which were approaching a million individuals, would have continued to grow, and by this time would have been much higher than that. Those are factual answers I can provide.
I'd also note that the levels plans for the last six years have seen a focus on economic immigration and a focus on those parts of the labour market that are at most need. In managing intake in the federal skilled-worker program, for example, we also prioritized certain occupations that are in most demand in the economy at this time.
:
Why, thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, witnesses.
I am a guest here today after not sitting on this committee for a while.
Mr. Manicom, I believe you have been around more than any of the members here—or at least you understand the system better than me, I would say. Based on your knowledge of the system, do the changes recently made by our government have any positive impact on processing times, or the quality of immigration? We are trying to match the demand of the day. For example, we dealt with foreign credential recognition, which is my issue. Does that have a positive impact on our Canadian society?
Another issue is fraud marriages, or marriages of convenience. All those changes that were introduced in recent years, do they have any positive impact on our Canadian society?
:
Our first priority on this point is to listen to the family members and other persons related to persons in Canada who have been afflicted or affected personally by the situation and are from the affected areas.
In some cases, our people on the ground are going out with delegations in the field to the most affected areas, basically day in, day out, to see if they can find people: in the first instance, Canadians who have been reported missing. They're also working with lists to see if there's anybody who needs to be reached. This has happened for a couple of days now, and we're trying to do it in concert; it's being managed out of the mission.
Otherwise, away from the mission, we're trying to provide good answers about the situation, about getting people the right information they need to make applications to us. We're looking at basically the whole gamut—i.e., if anybody wants to ask us a question, how do we help them to get the outcomes they need?
Where we're maybe less.... We are screening, because we're not necessarily facing at the first instance the situation of people who would be outside the affected area, or people who may want to assist people, but we're helping them to make the right connections.
Our first priority is the family members of permanent residents, of citizens, and then looking at the persons who are temporarily in Canada working, for example, who have family members in the Philippines in the affected areas.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I am not a regular member of this committee, but certainly I welcome the opportunity to be here. I know that all members of Parliament typically deal with these issues back home in our ridings and in our offices. That's really where the questions come from that I'm going to ask.
Over the past number of years that I've been a member of Parliament, I've seen a dramatic increase in the number of constituents we are serving, newcomers coming to the city of Saskatoon, certainly settling in my riding. They come to us with a number of issues, be it sponsoring a family member or family members to come to Canada, or looking to become permanent residents.
Not only are they coming to talk to us about these issues, but we also have constituents who have tended to start to look at our office as a resource. They look at our office as a resource not only for immigration issues but also for travelling abroad. One of the ways we have sought to provide service to our constituents is to hold passport clinics, where we give individuals a bit of an understanding with regard to what may be required. We often help them with their applications.
I know that our government introduced the ePassport, which is the 10-year passport that provides a lot more convenience, I think, to Canadians and that continues to facilitate secure and safe travel.
I wonder if you could just expand a little bit on the benefits we are seeing with this passport, and maybe give us a bit of an understanding with regard to how many 10-year passports you have seen Canadians apply for.
:
Thanks for your question.
The ePassport started to be available to Canadians in February 2012. As of July 1 last summer, on Canada Day, five-year and 10-year ePassports were made available to all Canadians.
Since then, we've issued more than a million 10-year ePassports. I can report that close to 80% of the passports issued are 10-year ePassports.
We used to have only a five-year passport. When we looked at our international partners, the international community was moving toward 10 years. We took the opportunity to have a more robust passport book and to move to 10 years along with our international partners.
I don't know if that answers your question or if you'd like a bit more information.