Good afternoon, dear colleagues.
I am pleased to be here to present my department's supplementary estimates (A) for fiscal year 2018-2019. Today I'm accompanied by some of my officials from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
[English]
They are Marta Morgan, the Deputy Minister; Daniel Mills, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer of Immigration; Paul MacKinnon, Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy; and Dr. Harpreet Kochhar, Assistant Deputy Minister of Operations.
The 2018-19 supplementary estimates (A) for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada include a net increase of $59.9 million in resources. The most significant component of this is under grants and contributions. There is $50 million earmarked to support provinces in providing temporary housing for asylum seekers. These amounts support the government's earlier funding announcements that we made in the summer of 2018. This includes a commitment of $11 million for the City of Toronto, $3 million to the Province of Manitoba and $36 million to the Province of Quebec.
Also included in grants and contributions is the renewal of $3 million per year over five years under the global assistance for irregular migrants program to support the government's renewed migrant smuggling prevention strategy. This strategy funding is provided to trusted international, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and partners to help efforts to detect, prevent and deter human smuggling operations.
These estimates also cover three other key categories. First, our increase for operating expenditures totals $7.1 million. This includes $2.7 million to expand biometric screening in Canada's immigration system to verify the identity of all visa-required travellers seeking entry into Canada; $2.1 million to support the protection of classified information under division 9 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, when this information is used to make decisions on temporary or permanent resident applications in Canada; and $1.1 million to support an outreach strategy to key populations to deter irregular migration and dispel misinformation and to conduct in-depth analysis of irregular migration trends and demographic profiles.
There are also capital expenditures of $8.6 million to improve IT platforms or systems in order to deliver on key initiatives. These include $3.2 million to expand biometric screening in Canada's immigration system and perform remaining information technology system enhancements and changes; $3 million for the international mobility program, under which we work with the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada; and $2.4 million for the entry-exit information exchange program to allow real-time exchange of traveller data between Canada and the United States.
In addition, IRCC intends to transfer close to $9.4 million to other government departments. The vast majority of this includes a transfer to Global Affairs Canada in the amount of $9.2 million. This will support growth in IRCC's international network to meet the requirements of our multi-year immigration levels plan.
[Translation]
The government is delivering on its key commitments to welcome those who want to contribute to our country's success, reunite families and uphold Canada's humanitarian tradition.
[English]
As our multi-year levels plan for 2019-21 suggests, our priority for immigration is to meet our country's economic needs and address labour market and skills shortages. That is why, from 2020 to 2021, 72% of the additional admissions are being allocated to economic programs primarily under the express entry system and the provincial nominee program.
By helping to meet our labour market needs in regions across the country, our government will plan to help to boost Canada's economic potential in the face of an aging population and slowing labour force growth.
Our government has also introduced new programs and is testing new ideas to help attract the specific talent that our country needs. This past June, we celebrated the first year of the global skills strategy. Since its launch, that program has received over 15,000 work permit applications, meaning more employers across the country have been able to quickly get the talent they need to Canada.
We also recognize the success of the start-up visa program, and we turned it into a permanent program in April 2018. This will drive innovation and support job-creating entrepreneurs to move to Canada and then scale up, because that's where the jobs are. More than 130 start-ups in many different industries have launched across the country with the help of this program.
Developed in collaboration with the Atlantic provinces, the Atlantic immigration pilot program continues to help designated Atlantic businesses attract international graduates and skilled foreign workers to fill job vacancies and help grow economies in Atlantic Canada.
In addition to helping our country meet its economic needs through immigration, our government is firmly committed to uniting families with their loved ones faster. We aim to reunite 88,500 permanent residents with their families in 2019, and we have slashed the wait times for spouses from what it used to be, 26 months, to 12 months in the vast majority of cases. To help reunite even more parents and grandparents with their families, our government has quadrupled the number of applications from 5,000 in 2016 to 20,000 in the beginning of 2019.
We've also made significant progress in reducing backlogs in our spousal caregiver and parent and grandparent programs. The extra spaces help us to reduce those backlogs.
With respect to maintaining our humanitarian tradition, refugee numbers have more than doubled from pre-2015 levels. The number of spaces for privately sponsored refugees has actually quadrupled under our government. Our goal in 2018 is to welcome 27,000 resettled refugees, and in 2019 we will welcome 29,950 admissions. This includes the additional 1,000 spaces in budget 2018 to provide protection to 1,000 vulnerable women and girls.
[Translation]
Mr. Chair, our government wants to ensure that Canada's immigration system is based on compassion and economic opportunities for all, and that it benefits both Canadians and the newcomers that it serves.
[English]
As such, we will continue to work with provinces and territories as well as our various other partners to ensure that our immigration system not only operates efficiently but also protects the health, safety and security of Canadians and grows our economy even further.
My officials and I would now be happy to take any of your questions.
[Translation]
Thank you very much.
:
This has primarily been led by the IRCC, but our missions abroad have been engaged in this. For example, in the United States, our embassy in Washington as well as our consulates across the United States have been engaged in this.
Members of Parliament have also gone there and engaged with many stakeholders, including service delivery organizations, lawyers, community activists and potential asylum seekers themselves, to answer questions directly and clear up misinformation, and really engage with community media, as well. That has had quite an impact.
You can see, for example, the reduction in the number of Nigerian nationals who have come to Canada irregularly this year versus last year, and also, the appreciation that some of these individuals have had in the United States for that engagement, clarifying and pushing back against misinformation and answering their questions on their concerns about asylum.
It seems like the efforts and the two learnings from the Haitian migrant situation really paid off this last year.
The other budgetary item on the operations side that caught my eye was the biometrics screening. That's because oftentimes when we think about biometric screening, we think about capital costs associated with technology and training costs associated with using the technology. Then, anytime you implement a technological solution, it seems like it can be a never-ending money pit.
With this $2.7 million, is this one of these situations where we foresee spending $2.7 million every year extra, or do you see growth within the biometric cost? From the estimates perspective, it's not clear to me how this expenditure is going to grow over time.
:
That's a very good question.
Let me address the need for biometrics. It is really about supporting our security screening of foreign nationals coming to Canada before they arrive in Canada. By having a system that fundamentally gives us even more confidence in terms of being confident of the identity of the individual, it contributes to stronger safety and security of Canadians.
It also, on the other side, allows for facilitation of frequent travellers. Once you get your biometrics done, it's good for 10 years. Therefore, the next time you come to Canada it facilitates your travel because we know who you are. We don't have to worry about your identity.
It is in line with what our closest allies have done. They've had biometrics in place for a while now. We're catching up to that and making sure that we have the same system. This allows us to really, as I said, deter those who shouldn't be coming to Canada.
It allows us to know about them and to do a security screening before they arrive here. Then for frequent travellers who are bona fide travellers it allows more facilitation, at a time when you see longer and longer lines at airports, for people coming back to Canada or visiting for the first time. This will certainly help in that process.
As you are aware, because we've discussed this so many times in this committee, there are resources. In fact, we've had officials in front of committee talking about the resources allocated to provide support for members of Parliament with casework. This subject has come up on both sides. We've had multipartisan complaints about this, on whether or not the casework resources provided to MPs and members of the public, even in terms of our immigration consultants study, are adequate.
The questions I am asking, Mr. Chair, are on whether or not there has been an appropriate use of those resources by the minister and a current member who is currently under ethics investigation. I believe this is directly relevant given the fact that we are here to examine the estimates and the appropriateness of their allocation—how they're used. I have, in each and every one of my questions, drawn it back to that point.
To my colleague opposite, I would also note that I did ask for the aggregate total. I am asking how much service and other people I've mentioned have gotten from the minister as part of the use of these resources as allocated under the supplementary estimates, which I believe is in order.
:
Today, we are trying to obtain specific information. If, at a committee, we ask what services the minister's team provides to other members in general, that is one thing; but if we attempt to obtain information on a particular member, that is something else. We are not authorized to do that here. Questioning the minister on particular cases is not part of the committee's mandate. We are wasting time and, unfortunately, we are using the minister's time poorly even though we have important matters to discuss.
If the member across the way wants to obtain more information on a member and the use of specific resources, she may make a written request outside of the committee. The fact is that she's preventing the rest of the committee from working while we should be discussing important immigration issues that are of concern to Canada. We are not here to discuss former member Mr. Grewal's particular case. He is no longer an MP. I find it regrettable that we are wasting other members' time and that of the minister and his team, despite the fact that we are facing certain situations in Canada.
I am somewhat surprised by Ms. Rempel's behaviour, as she is really concerned with immigration matters in Canada and sometimes makes judicious interventions in the House on that topic. Today, we have the opportunity of moving the immigration file forward and allowing Canadians to understand what the government is doing in that area. And yet, the member is not using her speaking time to do that.
I am going to stop here. I could go on at length and waste everyone's time, but I don't want to do that. I have questions for the minister so that we can move the immigration file forward. I would like my colleague to do the same.
To my colleague's point, it is actually, per the rules of Bosc and Gagnon, my determination whether or not I feel my time that is allocated is being best spent with the minister. As reference, I would point to page 1016 of Bosc and Gagnon, where it states that the questions and discussions at meetings related to the estimates “are generally wide-ranging”, and on page 1078, that there are “no specific rules governing the nature of questions”.
In each of my questions I have put forward very detailed information regarding how this is relevant. Again, to my colleague, I would remind him that the minister does expend a significant amount of resources, public funds, tax funds. This is what we're doing here. We're examining the use of taxpayer funds in supporting MPs and other people in casework.
He does, as I have established in questions with him, have the authority under subsection 24(3) to direct immigration officials to make determinations based on his own will. I feel it's very relevant to understand how much time has been allocated to the friends and associates of a member of Parliament who is currently under investigation by the RCMP, given that the minister has been pictured with one of these people.
I would point out to my colleague opposite the optics on this particular point of order. We have my Liberal colleagues here who voted against putting the minister under oath on this particular thing. That doesn't look particularly wonderful. In fact, Mr. Chair, I would argue that if this is ruled out of order, it looks like the minister and my colleagues opposite have something to hide.
Similarly, I would also observe that the extensive delay that we saw earlier in this meeting, when we had to suspend to determine whether a motion that was clearly in order was in fact in order, would be another example of this.
I'm not sure why my colleagues would not do their job as parliamentarians. They don't hold government positions. Their job is to hold the government to account.
Let me ask these questions because I want to know if there is something wrong here. That means that each and every one of us, and each and every one of our constituents have been held at a disadvantage. Frankly, I would hope that the minister would just say, “Nothing to see here, folks. There are no anomalies.” He'd be happy to post the aggregate data, which isn't confidential, on the number of case inquiries that , these various people that I have read, have made to him. Then we can clear this matter up and the public can rest confident that this is in fact, per the review of the supplementary estimates, an appropriate use of taxpayer funds.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
On this point, since there are no changes in supplementary estimates (A) with respect to whether members' allocation of time is allowed or not.... That's the first category of things I'd like to talk to.
The second category I'd like to speak to is whether the existing oath and affirmation we all take as MPs is already applicable and whether it's appropriate in any circumstances to ask an existing member of Parliament to breech their privilege by taking some additional oath. That's the second category.
The third thing is that each minister has his or her own oath that they take. There's also the standard expectation that when people are before committee they're going to come with candour.
The fourth part of the analysis on the allegations that Ms. Rempel brought earlier is as to whether there is some type of dishonesty. That's the point. Unless there is some form of dishonesty that is expected, or there is some reason to believe that someone isn't acting with candour, that's the point at which those types of motions are brought. It was quite insulting to everyone in the room and to the process and the institution to bring that type of a motion before there would be any type of allegation of impropriety at all.
Then it brings us back to a another category of things that I'd like to talk about, which is whether it's appropriate to get into the individual line items of members of Parliament when the minister has already said that he's prepared to answer the question.
I think that if I went through all those things, we wouldn't get time for the member of the NDP to ask her questions, so I will stop talking now because I know she's well prepared for the meeting.
I think in the future all members should be cognizant of the fact that we can all play these theatrical games, and no work can get done here. It's not just the opposite side that can do these foolish things.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
:
The concept of asking someone to go under oath has been used when there's a suspicion of misleading someone. That being said, the expectation that a minister would know the individual files of 338 members of Parliament over a past period of time is, quite frankly, ridiculous.
I don't know how many times I've spoken to the minister on a particular case for me, so if I were to be asked just how many times I have interpellated a minister on a particular case, I wouldn't be able to answer that.
If I simply can't answer it, putting me under oath does not give me some extra superpowers to answer it. The gamesmanship here—pretending that we're going to put someone under oath to get to the truth—is defamatory and part of some political game intended to suggest that the minister is hiding information, which is not true.
If the member is truly interested in getting this information, there's a process. You can file a paper called an access to information. You don't expect a minister to come to committee knowing the files of 338 people off the top of his head. That's ridiculous.
Normally, when I speak in other committees, I don't have to deal with other members. I did not interrupt Ms. Rempel. I did not interrupt Mr. Tilson. I did not interrupt Mr. Maguire. I find it quite annoying, Chair, that he feels it's his right to speak over me every time I say something.
I don't see how you have that right.
If you want to take my time, go ahead and do it, and I'll come back. If you have something to say, I'm going to cede my time so you can say it, Mr. Tilson, but then I want my time back.
I'm not going to speak over him, though, Chair. I'll wait.
:
Chair, since my colleague, Mr. Baylis, raised the relevancy or the issue of points in time when people are sworn in, I would refer him to chapter 20 of Bosc and Gagnon, under reference 687, where it says:
At various times, committees have sworn in the Prime Minister, Ministers, the Auditor General, senior public servants, and members of the Privy Council. See, for example, Special Committee on Certain Charges and Allegations made by George N. Gordon, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 3, 1932, Issue No. 1; Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, January 28, 1987, Issue No. 20, pp. 3-4, 9-14; Speaker Fraser's ruling (Debates, March 17, 1987...); Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Minutes of Proceedings, May 3, 2004, Meeting No. 39; Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, Minutes of Proceedings, February 5, 2008, Meeting No. 13; Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, June 2, 2010, Meeting No. 21.
The reference further states:
A committee may also decide to swear in all witnesses appearing before it in connection with a particular study. See, for example, Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Minutes of Proceedings, April 14, 2004, Meeting No. 25.
I would just like to refute the aspersion put forward in my colleague's comments, given that it's very well established in precedent that this is something that occurs and is routine.
Again, Mr. Chair, I would just re-emphasize my further point. We are talking about the use of taxpayer resources to assist members of Parliament with their work. At the same time, we have a colleague who it was my understanding had resigned, although I just read, Mr. Chair, that Elections Canada says he has not resigned.
I would like to know how many cases he referred to the minister's office and the list of other people that I have put forward, and how many times the minister used his authority under section 24(3) of IRPA based on requests of this member of Parliament. I believe we should determine—
:
I'm going to rule that Ms. Rempel has her seven minutes and she is able to continue in the line of questioning that she has engaged in, provided two things.
One is that no one in this committee should impugn the reputation of any other member of Parliament, either directly or indirectly. It's very clear in the House of Commons rules that an indirect impugning of one's character by suggesting, either indirectly or directly, that they are not telling or will not tell the truth is not going to be allowed in this committee as long as I'm the chairperson.
Anybody who suggests that someone—on either side or either end of this table, if they are a member of Parliament or have taken an oath—is not acting appropriately, then they will be ruled out of order.
I will ask for the Speaker's help with respect to that person as a matter of parliamentary privilege. Part of parliamentary privilege is to be able to come to this committee having taken an oath and be assumed to be telling the truth. That is the fundamental nature of the Westminster parliamentary tradition.
Ms. Rempel will have the floor in a moment, when I'm finished. She will be able to continue, as she will define for herself—and then the court of public opinion will decide—whether she is relevant or not. That is for her to make up.
I'd like to finish this. I'd like to read that last statement. It goes to the point of impugning someone's character. While the rules of procedure have said one thing, in 1960, in relation to the appearance of current and former ministers, the law clerk of the House advised the chair of what was then the railways, canals and telegraph lines committee that in the view of his oath as a privy councillor, he need not necessarily be sworn, although it would not be inappropriate to do so if a member of the House committee raised the point.
I wanted to raise that point that there's no requirement, ever, for a member of the Privy Council—or, I would actually argue, a member of the House of Commons—to be sworn in. The motion was in order. You could entertain that; however, it was also in order that the committee voted that it was not necessary.
I've made those three statements. I understand, unfortunately, that the minister has to leave to go to another appointment he committed to from 3:30 to 4:30. The committee was all well aware of that. Unfortunately, he has to leave. Our committee will continue with officials.
Ms. Kwan.
:
Mr. Chair, I just have a few comments.
I think you're asking about refugees in particular. We do see good results with refugees over a period of a number of years. In 2016, for example, refugees accounted for 3% of the labour force, while immigrants made up about 24%, but considering they're coming with many needs when they arrive, we think those numbers are good.
The labour market participation rate of refugees is just around 79%, which is consistent with the Canadian-born population.
Just to give you some facts on earnings, while the entry earnings of refugees are the lowest of all the immigrant categories—in particular in terms of government-assisted refugees, the average earnings for refugees are just around $20,000—that is in the early years of arrival. Then 10 years after landing, the share of refugees who report employment income on par with the Canadian average is just about 65%.
Those years in Canada when they become integrated and learn language skills is when you start to see those numbers really tick up.
With respect to the line of questioning earlier about the consent management process, in my office, when I happen to deal with an immigration case, I'm often asked by the agent on the phone for the date of birth, the UCI and the application number. They verify my identity and that I have this information, and that's what's deemed consent. I contrast that with the CRA, where I'm required to provide a physical consent form. I think there are two different standards of consent.
I like the process at the IRCC, so I'm not suggesting you change. But one thing about that process is that there's no ability for the IRCC to know from me whether or not I'm acting on behalf of any other individual group or for someone else's benefit. That's an ethics question.
Do you have some other mechanism to obtain that information generally, or does it not exist?
I'm going to ask some questions along the lines of the levels plan, because I think it affects the estimates process in terms of whether there will be more or less, or how the run rate is going to work in the budgetary process as we look forward.
In terms of the increased operating expenses, there doesn't appear to be anything related to increased or decreased costs associated with the levels plan. For the 2018-19 fiscal year, how are we doing, what ballpark are we at now, with respect to the levels plan and the expenditures? Do you expect expenditures to fluctuate with where we are in the levels plan, or are we going to be down the middle regardless, and plus or minus 20,000 cases really isn't going to change our operating expenses?
I just want to get a sense of that, because there's quite a broad range within the levels plan. From my perspective, if we were to hit the top ends I would expect to see some additional costs, or if we're at the low end, maybe some lesser costs.
I'd like to understand how you manage the finances in conjunction with the levels plan.
:
Thank you for your question.
Budget 2018 includes an amount of $174 million over two years to manage irregular migration, as well as for management at the border and the processing of asylum requests.
[English]
To speed up the processing of claims, $74 million will go directly to the Immigration and Refugee Board. This will allow the IRB to hire 248 new staff, including 64 decision-makers, in order to review an additional 17,000 asylum claims this year. The IRB has also increased its efficiency over the past year and finalized more than 50% of claims over what was foreseen. A dedicated effort is being made in order to address the increasing number of claims.
In terms of the normal time frame, the time frame for decisions at the IRB has varied greatly, depending on what's happening in terms of asylum claims in Canada. If you look over a historical period, you can see that when there are significant increases in claims, the processing time has gone up and then when the claims decrease, the processing time has gone down.
Prior to this significant inflow, I think that the flow coming in and flow going out, on any given year, was roughly in balance. At that point, the IRB had been funded to process between 20,000 to 24,000 claims a year because that was about what was anticipated, on an ongoing basis, until the recent increases that we've seen in the last two years.