:
Maybe we can get moving. We're approaching twenty-five minutes to four.
Before we welcome the minister and his deputy here today, and before the minister presents his opening statement, we have one housekeeping detail we should look after.
You have a page before you. Jonathan Faull, the director general of the European Commission's freedom, justice and security department, is coming to Ottawa next week for talks with CIC and Justice counterparts on a number of issues, and he would like to meet with our committee. He requested Thursday afternoon, May 18, but I believe our clerk has set up Wednesday, 5:30 to 6:30 in the afternoon. Would that meet with everyone's approval?
Okay. So we will be meeting with the European Commission's director general—if you could make note of it—on Wednesday, 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
On behalf of our committee, I want to welcome Minister Solberg and his deputy, Janice Charette, to our meeting today. I want to thank you, Minister, for your expediency in responding to our invitation to be here today.
I understand you have an opening statement, so I will defer to you. If you want to begin, please do so.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon to you, and honourable members.
I'm pleased to be appearing here before you today. With me is Janice Charette, the Deputy Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
I very much appreciate your invitation to address the standing committee.
[Translation]
I am proud to have the chance to update this committee on the important work accomplished by our department.
[English]
First, I want to tell members that I believe we can work together to solve problems and make the citizenship and immigration system more responsive to the needs of Canadians and those wanting to come here.
I have already met with many members of the committee over the past few months. I have been listening, and I am pleased to discover that for the most part we agree on the challenges that need to be addressed. It is also clear to me that there is considerable commitment, knowledge, and expertise at this table for finding attainable solutions.
I have also been meeting with stakeholders, including many of my provincial counterparts. They are telling me they want to work with our government to create a fair immigration system that protects people in need and encourages those from other countries to contribute to the Canadian economy.
I have also spent hours with members of Parliament from all parties, not necessarily on this committee, by the way. They have given me their impressions of the immigration system based on their own discussions with constituents, and it's clear to me that there are many challenges. The reason I am here today is to ask your help, to ask this committee for its help and guidance in meeting those challenges.
Our government has been in office a little more than 100 days. In that time, I have already observed some issues that have a long history.
There are nine million refugees overseas in need of protection, and Canada must do its part to give them aid and refuge. That is our moral obligation. However, significant resources are spent on claims made within Canada from individuals who do not require refugee protection. Despite the fact that the backlog has been significantly reduced, too often our in-Canada refugee determination process is complex, slow, costly, and inefficient. We must deal with those realities so that we are better able to help those who really need protection. We look forward to hearing your ideas on how this system can be improved for all involved.
The attractiveness of Canada to newcomers has resulted in more immigration applications than we are able to accept. Last year, Parliament set a goal for the government to welcome 220,000 to 245,000 new permanent residents. We exceeded that. We brought in actually more than 260,000 newcomers. Even so, over the last number of years the backlog of people wanting to come to Canada has grown to over 800,000 people.
This runs squarely into another problem facing Canada's immigration system. Canada, particularly its major cities, is an attractive place for those without legal status to stay and work. Without a doubt, they tend to be hardworking people, but the problem remains that they have come to Canada illegally. The previous government removed tens of thousands of these undocumented workers and sent them back to their home countries. That government understood that if there were no consequences to entering Canada illegally, there would be hundreds of thousands more who would attempt to come here illegally. Then there is the issue of fairness. What message would it send if we suddenly gave legal status to people who came here illegally while those who have played by the rules sit in line often for years?
I urge my colleagues to work with me to find ways for those with blue collar skills to come to Canada through legal channels.
We currently have several programs that address labour market challenges for skilled and unskilled workers. The temporary foreign workers program is designed to respond to local and job-specific needs. Last year, over 95,000 qualified foreign workers came to Canada. The temporary foreign workers program also gives workers the chance to boost their language skills and become more familiar with Canadian life. If they later choose to apply for permanent residency, their Canadian experience will improve their chances of meeting the criteria for residency.
Provincial nominee programs marry newcomers with labour market needs. The provinces play an important role--Quebec, of course, selects its own skilled workers--and the provincial nominee program helps other provinces support the immigration of individuals who have the skills and other attributes needed to fill worker shortages. But the program could be used more, and we are prepared to work and help the provinces and territories to do that if they so choose.
But while there are many challenges, we are not standing idle. Our government has already started to make changes and improve the citizenship and immigration system. Canadians and this government value immigrants.
In budget 2006, we reduced the right of permanent residence fee from $975 to $490, effective immediately.
As well, I was happy to recently announce that foreign students in our universities and colleges will be allowed to compete for off-campus jobs on a level playing field with their Canadian peers.
[Translation]
We estimate approximately 100,000 students will benefit from this initiative in all parts of Canada.
[English]
The program will increase Canada's attractiveness as a destination for students, and it will allow foreign students to gain valuable Canadian experience that will benefit both them and us.
We've also committed $18 million to hasten the recognition of foreign credentials.
[Translation]
This priority was an important element of our electoral campaign.
[English]
Given shared jurisdiction of the provinces and Canada for immigration, we recognize the need to consult with our provincial partners. We've already been doing that.
The government is allocating an additional $307 million to settlement funding over the next two years, over and above investments provided in recent budgets. This funding will give newcomers access to whole networks of people and services that are there to help them succeed. It also allows us not only to deliver on our commitment to fund the Canada-Ontario agreement, but provides additional funding to other provinces and territories outside of Quebec to address integration challenges faced by newcomers.
[Translation]
Prime Minister Harper had committed to address this file. And he has done so.
[English]
Our government made an election commitment to support Canadian parents who adopt foreign-born children by introducing legislation that will extend citizenship to these children. I am confident we will be able to deliver on that pledge.
We don't have all the answers. We do, however, believe that the answers must reflect fairness and compassion for individuals while protecting the security of our borders and the integrity of our immigration system. We need to find a balance. I look forward to working with members of the standing committee to find the right balance.
Finally, I'll say, despite rumours to the contrary, I am not a complete stranger to the subject of immigration and the immigration system. I live in Brooks, Alberta, home to 1,200 Sudanese refugees, which is nearly 10% of the community's total population. There are 36 languages spoken on the floor of the local meat packing plant. I also know how grateful these newcomers are to have found a new home in the greatest country in the world.
Thank you very much. I welcome your questions.
:
Thank you, Minister, for your presentation.
I'd also like to officially congratulate you. After all the years we served in opposition together, I think it's a well-deserved promotion for you to become a minister. I do recall, even during the time we served in opposition, your speaking about immigration issues, particularly the example in your riding of the Sudanese refugees. I know how passionately you spoke about their meat processing qualities, especially during the BSE crisis. So I know you are well aware of some of the challenges.
In any case, I wanted to focus on a couple of questions in the time I have. One is a general one, and I think it's something you already addressed briefly in your remarks, about the Canadian agency for assessment of foreign credentials. This is an issue that I think is very topical for all of us who have studied this in depth in the last session of Parliament.
I understand in the budget there's $18 million allocated for two years for this. Can you explain how this is going to work and how it's going to coordinate with the provinces to effectively achieve something? As you know, there hasn't been much achieved in this particular area, and we'd like to actually see some results, so maybe you can talk about how that's going to work.
Thank you for being here, Mr. Minister. I am new to this committee and learning lots about what goes on in this department. One of the things I've learned already is that behind every file there's a person. Unlike in some other ministries where you're dealing with regulations or rules, there are actually people on the other side of each of these files. That makes this so much more important than just dealing with things--dealing with people.
My first impression of the ministry--and this was not as a committee member but more as an opposition member, an MP in the last Parliament--was that some departments have a good reputation for efficiency, in that you put the paper in and the answer comes out the other side. The Passport Office is reasonably good; I think they've improved a lot. Even Revenue Canada seems to be able to chase you down quickly if you owe them any money. But your department doesn't have such a great reputation in terms of turnover of decisions, in making decisions--and the backlog, of course, there's evidence of that.
My question is, within the department, do you have benchmarks? I appreciate that every file is unique, but are there benchmarks established in terms of how long it ought to take to process a particular type of claim? And another question would be, are those benchmarks being met? Maybe a third question would be, just in general for you yourself and for your deputy, are you satisfied with the operating efficiency of your organization, and if not, what are your plans to improve it?
:
I would make a couple of points about that.
There are benchmarks set, believe it or not, and we mean that in a couple of ways. First of all, when people apply, they can actually see on the Internet how long it's likely to take their case to be processed. But there are also benchmarks that we try to meet internally, and we try to get two particular points, for instance, with the decision time. For instance, the IRB is a good example, where the chairman of the IRB sets goals for the amount of time that he wants it to take in a given year to make a decision on a case. So there are benchmarks and we measure ourselves, and others measure us, against them.
The second point I would make is that I've become quite a big fan of the people in the department. I know people are frustrated with how long it takes, but I really think that the people within the department are doing their level best to try to speed things along. There are a number of initiatives under way to try to make that happen. One of them is the global case management system, which is a much maligned system lately, but from what I can see, it is a good way to try to make things much more efficient than they are.
But in the end, I think when we talk about the backlog, for instance, it boils down to a couple of things. One of them is how we ensure that we don't process 250,000 to 260,000 people only to see 300,000 more apply and the backlog get longer, in which case I don't care how good your people are, you're going to have longer waiting times. So we have to figure out what we do about all these people applying. Do we have a different system where, when people apply, you say that we're going to find ways to restrict the number of people who apply in particular classes until such time as the backlog is done? There are other countries that handle it in different ways.
These are some of the issues I'm looking for some guidance on, and if we can get to the point where we decide how we want to handle that, then we can start to shorten the backlog and turn these cases around much more quickly.
:
No. As you know, the issue of undocumented workers has been an issue for a long time. The previous government did not move with any kind of regularization program. It was not even part of their election platform, which was interesting to me, given that so many members on the government side said it was on the cusp of happening. But somehow it didn't even make it into their election platform.
But setting that aside, this is a serious issue, and not just for Canada. It's an issue for every country in the world that is attractive to people, and we have to find a way to deal with it.
I think the best way to deal with it, frankly, is first to put in place a system that allows people who have blue collar skills and people who are general labourers to have a chance to come here, especially at a time when we need workers. So if they can come here legally, the first thing we do is staunch the illegal flow, which is critically important. Then at some point, when we get all that fixed, let's have a discussion about what we do with the undocumented workers who are here, who, by the way, in many cases are allowed to stay on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
I think that's the first step, and I think it's really important that we get the order right when we talk about this issue.
:
I know we can come up with some statistics for you.
Within Canada, I think we accept about 50% of the people who apply. We have a very generous system compared with the rest of the world when it comes to accepting refugee claims, but I'll make sure we confirm any numbers for you.
There's no question that there would be savings to the system—to the federal government—if the numbers of appeals were reduced in some cases, because in some of those cases people are not using the system as legitimate refugees, but to stay long enough so that they can get a positive ruling on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. But the other expense, of course, is to the provinces, who fund lawyers to defend people who make these claims. So it's in everyone's interest to make sure that the system is fair on the one hand, and on the other hand that it is not overly complex. There are probably some ways we can do that.
With respect to your first comment that you're new to this committee, I would say that knowledge is important, but commonsense and goodwill are just as important. I think you'll do just fine, even representing a rural riding. In my rural riding, we have lots of immigration issues because we have so many refugees. I think every MP, to some degree, gets a crash course in immigration just by virtue of their position.
:
I'll try my best, Chair. Thank you for the warning.
I wanted to focus on the international student issue for a moment, Minister. I understand international students contribute about $4 billion a year to the Canadian economy. I think the minister should know that in my riding, Edmonton—Strathcona, the University of Alberta is home to about 35,000 students, and 2,100 of those, I believe, are foreign students who come into the riding every year. I believe even in the chair's riding, at Memorial University, there are about 800 international students.
I've already been hearing from students on this, who are very excited about the fact that they can look at working and helping to pay for some of the costs they incur in coming to Canada.
I was curious, though, when is this program going to become effective? How many students are going to be eligible for it, and how is it going to be rolled out? If you want to, speak about some of the benefits, because I think clearly this is going to help some of the challenges in the economy, as well, that I was talking about earlier. Whatever you can address on that would be great.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming and joining us here.
Before I get into the questions, I just wanted to do a short brief to let you know that the riding I represent, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, is the largest riding by population in Canada. We've got a dramatically growing population—a lot of it due to the immigration policy we've enjoyed in Canada—and we've got a lot of people moving to British Columbia and into my riding. I also act as the associate critic for finance and the chair of the B.C. caucus, so there are quite a number of people I have to represent and communicate with.
I just wanted to start off by saying that I'm disappointed, frankly, in your presentation, Mr. Minister. It's eight pages of double-spaced type when you've been in the job for a hundred days now, or three months. Maybe it's my fault, but I was expecting more of a quarterly report and an update as to what your department has been doing for the past three months and, more importantly, what your plan is, what your mission statement is, or what your vision is for the future.
Canada is the greatest country on this planet because of our immigration policy, and this committee that we all sit proudly on is critically important to the success and the future of Canadians. When we're talking about this file, it's not as if we're in the Department of Finance, where we're talking about numbers. These are real people, these are real families, the real future of Canada, for whom we all need to work together to represent and take forward. I don't see anything in this documentation that provides us with any vision or any plan for the future.
Right now in Canada we're sitting on what I call the ticking time bomb, where we've got a dramatic bulk of people in the baby boomer age group who are set to retire and, at the same time, we need more people coming into Canada to balance that out and to be able to support those people who will soon be into retirement, and who reduce the workforce as a result. So that's the one ticking time bomb we all have to deal with.
If you combine that with western Canada and the growth rate that we are seeing in British Columbia and Alberta, and the need for workers.... We need all levels of workers. We need people in the subtrades, as was mentioned earlier, and we need people in the health care industry. There's an incredible demand in western Canada for workers, and at the same time, Canada as a whole is at a thirty-year low in unemployment.
So you combine those two situations, those two facts, with what you have outlined in your report here, that we have 800,000 people backlogged in our system, and it just makes me shake my head to say the solution is sitting here right in front of us. Normally we're trying to figure out the equilibrium between demand and supply. Well, right now we have an enormous demand in Canada for workers and you have an enormous supply of workers to get into the pipeline.
So my humble question to you is, what's your game plan or strategy to get these 800,000 people off our backlog and get these 800,000 people into Canada, and when will you achieve it?
:
Thanks for the question.
I guess it goes without saying that I reject the premise of your long preamble, which is that we don't have a plan. We've actually started to implement a plan, and if you look in that document, you'll see a few things that we've achieved.
If I can say this, I think that one thing people are tired of is a lot of talk. I think they want some things done. We've done some things early on, and we want to do more. But it's also true that these are very difficult issues and I would love to have some input, which is what I've asked you for in that double-spaced document I've given you—which, by the way, allows you a bit more time to ask questions and to provide some solutions yourself.
So what I'd truly like is some input. I mentioned the issue of the backlog of 800,000 people and the issue or problem of having 250,000 or 260,000 people coming to Canada every year, but 300,000 people more applying, so the list gets longer. So what do we do to ensure that the list doesn't get longer and that people can be processed in a normal or decent amount of time?
So part of the process here is not just for me to come with a grand vision. If people want some things done, I'd like your input, and feel free to fire away.
:
Minister, as I mentioned, I'd like to propose a way of reducing the delays encountered at offices abroad. However, in order to reduce waiting times, we would need to have some statistics on these offices.
On looking into this situation, we discovered that some people had withdrawn their applications because they had grown discouraged over the waiting time, and that a number of other offices seemed to be handling a growing number of applications.
I don't expect you to tell me how you propose to resolve this problem. However, perhaps you could report back to us on the number of applications currently awaiting a final decision, on the number of visas issued and on the overall number of applications either accepted, rejected or withdrawn. Perhaps you could also tell us how long it takes to conduct a security inquiry.
In some of the cases in which we have intervened, the department has been able to issue travel documents very quickly, as well as complete the paperwork required in order to issue visas. However, there seems to be a lingering misconception that security inquiries take a very long time. Could you give us some statistics on this matter?
Earlier, my colleague Johanne Deschamps mentioned problems relating to our embassies in Africa. I don't quite understand what is happening in our Abidjan bureau. Many of the problems being brought to our attention have to do with the Abidjan bureau. The waiting times are incredibly long. Communications with this office are difficult. In my opinion, it also has the poorest record in terms of service. Can you shed any light on the problems at this embassy?
We also have some concerns about residents of the Middle East. Certain countries such as Libya and Syria are locked in age-old conflicts. Libyans who want to apply for permanent residence in Canada must go to the Syrian embassy to file their application.
Surely you see the problem here. I'd like to hear from departmental officials some suggestions and explanations as to how services were chosen. These officials could also let us know exactly how many departmental employees work in each bureau. This information would help the committee get a better grasp of the issue and enable it to focus on solutions.
:
Generally speaking, I think Blair raised the issue. The demographics are such that we find there are particular needs in various skills and trades, and we find in Alberta that with a booming economy it requires a certain type of people. It seems anybody I might talk to, whether it's truckers, welders, or any group, they find it difficult to acquire people.
I know it's a balance in the sense that we want to be sure we use our Canadian workers that are able to fit the bill, but many times they're not able to find that. Human Resources and Social Development has been doing studies, and if the trend continues to show that there will be shortfalls in all of these areas, it's something we may need to address more specifically.
Yet in the current system of points scoring, we find a lot of qualified people coming into our country who aren't necessarily matched to a particular job waiting for them, resulting in a certain element of frustration. Some of that is credentialling, it's true, but some of that is because they're not being matched up to what our country needs. In the one case we have people coming in, in a significant flow, but no place to place them. Then we have needs, but we don't have people to fill them.
I'm not sure if the provincial nominee program is the type of program we can look to, or whether there's something that can be done within the system itself to say that we should attempt to meet the needs we have through some other systematic means. I'm not sure if you have any thoughts on that or if there are any points you'd like to make.