Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
National Finance
Issue 37 - Evidence - April 23, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 23, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met in public this day, at 9:30 a.m., to study the expenditures set out in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending on March 31, 2014.
Senator Joseph A. Day (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Honourable senators, this morning, we are continuing our study of the main estimates for 2013-14.
[English]
In our first panel this morning, we are pleased to welcome officials from Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Appearing before us are Amipal Manchanda, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer; Robert Orr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations; and Catrina Tapley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy.
I understand that Mr. Manchanda has some brief opening remarks, which have been circulated. Then we will go into a question and answer discussion period with respect to the documents that should be before us, the Main Estimates for this fiscal year. Those who are interested in the plans and priorities will find some interesting material in those documents, which have recently been published by each of the government departments, as well.
Mr. Manchanda, you have the floor.
Amipal Manchanda, Assistant Deputy Minister, Chief Financial Officer, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate this opportunity to talk about Citizenship and Immigration's priorities for 2013-14. As you know, the Government of Canada remains focused on the economy and job growth. Immigration is a key part of this plan, and we are committed to ensuring our immigration system supports the Government of Canada's objectives of jobs, growth and long-term prosperity.
This year, we will continue to promote measures to increase economic immigration and make the immigration system more efficient. Throughout 2013, we will welcome approximately 158,600 immigrants and their dependents, or 62 per cent of all projected admissions, through various economic immigration programs.
At the same time, we will continue to uphold Canada's long-standing humanitarian tradition and to maintain our family reunification goals.
The total Main Estimates for Citizenship and Immigration Canada this fiscal year are $1,655.4 million, an increase of $109.9 million over the previous fiscal year.
Our operating expenditures show an increase of $27.9 million. This is largely to fund new security initiatives under the Canada-U.S. Perimeter Security and Economic Competitiveness Action Plan.
As you know, honourable senators, the action plan committed Canada and the U.S. to share information, improve immigration and refugee determinations, establish the identity of foreign nationals and conduct screening at the earliest opportunity.
[Translation]
Canada and the U.S. will share information on all applications for temporary or permanent resident visas, work or study permits, and for refugee protection claims made inland and overseas.
Through enhanced information sharing and improved screening of immigrants and visitors, we hope to prevent terrorists, violent criminals and others who pose a risk from entering Canada or the United States.
The remaining $96-million increase is for statutory payments, primarily to return fees for federal skilled worker applicants.
[English]
As you know, honourable senators, the Jobs and Growth Act, 2012, closed the majority of older federal skilled worker applications, some that were already eight years old. This accounted for about 280,000 people. This was part of a series of actions to realize our vision of a just-in-time immigration system that better responds to our economy's current needs.
In 2008, there were 640,000 persons in the federal skilled worker backlog. If we allowed it to grow, this backlog would have exceeded over a million people by now, with a wait time of over a decade. By 2015, it would have ballooned to over 1.5 million and a 15-year wait time. The Action Plan for Faster Immigration reduced the intake of new applications and brought down the backlog by over 50 per cent by mid-2011.
However, by late 2011, it became clear that more needed to be done. That is why we have closed older federal skilled worker applications and will return the full amount of the fees paid to the department.
Through this series of actions, this backlog has now been significantly reduced. At the end of 2012, the federal skilled worker backlog stood at 91,000 persons.
As a result, Citizenship and Immigration Canada can now move forward toward a just-in-time immigration system, whereby applicants who have the skills our economy needs will come to Canada within months instead of several years.
Mr. Chair, this concludes my opening remarks. My colleagues and I will be more than happy to answer any questions from committee members.
The Chair: Mr. Manchanda, thank you very much. I will go to my list of honourable senators in a moment. I just want to confirm that you have, at the present time, 280,000 foreign nationals who have applied as skilled workers to come to Canada and whose applications have been cancelled. Is that the group to whom you have to pay back the amount they have paid in?
Mr. Manchanda: That is correct, Mr. Chair. These are applications that were submitted prior to February 27, 2008, and we have proceeded to terminate these applications. There are approximately 280,000 individuals who are affected and to whom we will return the fees.
The Chair: I am just trying to get all of the different figures straightened out in my mind here. At the bottom of page 3, you indicate that, in 2012, you closed the majority of older files. This accounted for 280,000. Then you talk about 640,000 persons in 2008. What is the exposure of the federal government? How many applicants are there who have paid money and have been waiting and to whom you are required to pay money back?
Mr. Manchanda: At this point in time, if you go back to the 280,000 files that were terminated, these were files that were in existence when the amendments were made. On June 29, we took the steps to terminate older skilled worker applications. At that point in time, we had applications that were pre-February 2008, and those were for 280,000 applicants. Those are the applications that we took steps to terminate.
The Chair: How much per individual do we, as Canadians, have to pay back?
Mr. Manchanda: The total will amount to $130 million.
The Chair: Per individual?
Mr. Manchanda: No. Per individual, the processing fee is $475. That is the processing fee, the application fee. Per individual, that will be the amount that will be refunded.
The Chair: Are we refunding any interest in addition to that since we have held that money for quite a while?
Mr. Manchanda: No, the legislation did not contemplate any interest. The fees will be returned without interest.
Senator L. Smith: Could you provide a history? How did the backlog get so big? There are only so many folks we can bring into the country at any given time, and Canada has always been positively regarded in terms of our immigration policy. Can you give us a bit of history from your perspective?
Mr. Manchanda: I can start, and I can ask my colleagues to add to my comments.
The way the immigration program was previously designed before a series of steps was taken to manage our intake, we had no intake control over our immigration program. We normally let in, through our Immigration Levels Plan, which is tabled in Parliament, between 240 and 260. That is a range we look at in terms of prospective individuals to let into Canada. However, we had no controls to be able to manage the flow of applications. There were no intake controls. Year over year, we would always get more applications than we could process. What would happen is that our targets would be set, and we would accomplish those targets. However, in terms of the people applying, we had no way to control that intake. Year over year, we would have a backlog build up. This backlog built up over a number of years. As I mentioned in my opening comments, in 2008, there were approximately 640,000 persons in just the federal skilled worker backlog. If we had not taken steps to manage that, it would have just grown. By 2015, there would have been over 1.5 million individuals in that backlog. I will ask my colleagues if they want to add any additional information.
Robert Orr, Assistant Deputy Minister, Operations, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: I think you have covered it fairly well there. Each year, as you know, the minister goes to Parliament with a levels plan, which breaks down, in various categories, the number of people we intend to accept each year. Without intake controls, this inevitably led to an inventory of applications.
Senator L. Smith: Is this a historical problem?
Mr. Orr: That is right.
Senator L. Smith: When the present government came into power, what was the basis you started from? I would really like to see the historical perspective. Is this something that goes back 10, 15 or 20 years? Has this been a constant problem that had to be addressed?
Mr. Orr: Essentially, yes. Canada remains a very popular destination. We receive a lot of applications; there is a lot of interest. Without having control over intake, it has been a perennial issue. Recently, the measures taken have allowed us to control the intake and to process applications in a timelier manner. It also means that we are getting people who correspond more readily to our labour market needs today.
Senator L. Smith: Thank you.
Catrina Tapley, Associate Assistant Deputy Minister, Strategic and Program Policy, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: If I may, I would add two things. First, in the mid-2000s, the government introduced a series of measures that we refer to as ministerial instructions. They made changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that gave the minister and the department some additional control over whom we were selecting from the backlog that existed and, more importantly, whom we were selecting from new applicants — things like occupation lists. We were only taking applicants for a skilled worker program from certain groups. That has helped to manage the backlog and the number of applications there.
The other measure that the minister announced recently is a move to something called ``an expression of interest system.'' This is the next wave of change in the immigration system on how we select federal skilled workers. This change will have us move to more of a pool idea. It is an idea we borrowed from New Zealand and, most recently, from Australia. Skilled workers will apply to come to Canada — they file an expression of interest in coming to Canada. That expression will be screened against some basic points criteria that we already use, such as age, language ability, education, et cetera. If they make it through the first screen and we accept their expression of interest, they will be in a pool. We will match with the pool, which is set for a certain period of time. Once the application is in the pool, it may be selected by employer groups, provinces through provincial programs or the federal government, as being a good federal skilled worker to come to Canada. Once that is done, they are invited to apply for a full application for permanent residence to come to Canada.
The pool is limited; and we have not set the time. In Australia, it is two years; and in New Zealand, it is about six months. When an application has rested in the pool for that long and if no one has picked it up, then the application dies. A person may reapply but would not be invited to submit a full application for permanent residence. That is the next wave of change that will help us to manage both backlog situations and the numbers of individuals who are coming, as well as to better match the needs of the labour market with the immigration system.
The Chair: As a supplementary question, is the program that you just described a regulation? I believe that we have not seen it as legislation. Is it a regulation or a ministerial directive?
Ms. Tapley: Mention of this program was in both Budget 2012 and Budget 2013. Depending on the design of our program, the minister has said the goal is to have this program ready for the end of 2014. There may be small legislative changes associated with this in terms of authorities. Much of the rest will be done through regulation; but that is the goal of the program.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: When employers participate in the selection process, what do they do? Do they have a set of guidelines? Do they go with you, or do they tell you what they want in advance and then you share their requests with the public servants?
Ms. Tapley: That is a good question. The best answer I can give you is that I am not sure.
[English]
In the process of designing this, we are talking a lot to employer groups on how their participation would work in the pool. Certainly, it would work very closely with the department on how that would happen, including the types of access and privacy considerations that would have to be around this in terms of the applications in the pool, as well as the type of screening we would have for employers to ensure that we have a valid list of employers. We are grappling with all of those key questions.
We have created a small advisory committee of employers to help us through this and to begin to pose those questions. I am sorry that I do not have a more thorough answer, but that is exactly what we are struggling with at the moment.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have some questions concerning your report on plans and priorities, the strategic plan, pertaining to program 3.1, which addresses the labour market integration of newcomers.
I looked at your targets. It was all quite interesting. It is hard to know whether the target is appropriate or not, but I had questions about some specific targets. I was wondering about the percentage of internationally trained individuals working in the occupational skill level that matches their education level.
Under sub-program 3.1.1, the target is roughly 57.2 per cent. But where does that percentage come from and how do you recognize foreign credentials? Does this refer to the recognition of academic credentials or workforce skills?
Mr. Manchanda: This is the area that the minister is focusing on most. The department decided that a key factor for success with respect to the best way of integrating newcomers was to focus on their education and their occupational skills.
[English]
We have incorporated a number of things, such as the Foreign Credential Recognition Projects. We have heard stories over and over of individuals coming to Canada and not being able to find pathways to have their credentials properly recognized. They do not know the means to have those recognized. We have a foreign credential recognition office within our department. We work closely with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to create those pathways. As well, we have worked with the provinces to engage a number of professions where we have outlined access mechanisms to have the professional designations of these individuals recognized.
We have set up a series of educational assessment organizations overseas. The idea is that newcomers planning to come to Canada will have a clear understanding of their ability to have their credentials recognized once they arrive. We are moving on that even before the selection period. We are asking individuals to have their credentials assessed before they come to Canada so they have a clear understanding of whether they will be recognized or what is required in terms of additional education or steps to be to have them properly recognized. I will ask Ms. Tapley to add a few more details.
[Translation]
Ms. Tapley: There are two parts to your question. The first has to do with education and the second concerns professional credentials.
[English]
It was announced last week that we are moving to something called ``education credential assessment,'' so I will speak to professional credentials in a moment.
Education counts for a great number of points on the points grid. To come to Canada as a skilled worker, the application is assessed on many criteria, such as age, education and language abilities, to name a few. Once an application has 67 points, then it is considered. Education can account for as many as 25 points, so it is a pretty important factor in terms of looking at who is coming to Canada as a skilled worker.
The government announced that we are moving to a system where education credentials have to be verified by a third party before we consider the application. Just as you have to show us proof of language ability before you come as a skilled worker, you now have to show us proof that your education credentials are real and that there is a Canadian equivalent. We announced four bodies to help to do this, the biggest being World Education Services. They are in many places in the world, but in Canada they are out of Toronto.
There are two other assessment bodies that will do this as well: one based in Guelph and the other associated with the University of Toronto, I believe. There is also a fourth body, a professional association, the Medical Council of Canada. We hope to announce a fifth soon.
If you are coming and you are a physician, then you need to go to the Medical Council of Canada. If you are coming and you are not a physician, then you have three bodies that will take your education credential and verify that indeed this person went to this university, that the university exists and that these marks are actually the marks of the individual submitting the application.
First, there is a veracity question. The second part to this is whether it has a Canadian equivalent. One of the frustrations from engineers has been that many people were coming to Canada saying they were engineers, having graduated from engineering programs abroad, but we would recognize the type of education they had as more of an engineering technician as opposed to a full professional engineer in Canada. It was difficult for individuals coming who certainly feel a sense of disappointment, and difficult for the regulatory body itself. That is just for education credentials.
Professional credentials are the responsibility of regulatory bodies, which are the responsibility of the provinces. Over the past four or five years we have been working closely with the provinces on the Pan-Canadian Framework for the Assessment and Recognition of Foreign Qualifications. There are groups of targeted, regulated occupations that we have focused on. We have done two rounds and we are about to announce another one.
The two rounds have focused on about 80 per cent of the regulated occupations. We have worked with the provinces and the regulatory bodies to provide some funding through Human Resources and Skills Development Canada. I think it has been about $50 million, but I would have to verify that number.
The first group included architects, pharmacists, physiotherapists, registered nurses, engineers, financial auditors and accountants, medical laboratory technologists and occupational therapists. The second group focused again on a lot of the health professions, because we are dealing with regulated professions, but it also included engineering technicians, teachers — kindergarten to grade 12 — and the others, dentists, nurses, radiation technologists and physicians.
As I believe was announced in Budget 2012 or 2013, we are ready to move to a third round. The intention of the government is to include some skilled trades in the third round of occupations.
Senator Bellemare: That is coming.
Ms. Tapley: Exactly, key skilled trades that are in demand. The hurdles are trying to work with — I had these numbers in my head and they were astounding — something like 51 provincial departments and 200 and some regulatory bodies. It is a real mishmash: 13 jurisdictions, 3 federal departments, because the Department of Health plays heavily in this equation as well. It is a difficult coordination and governance exercise.
We have made progress in terms of building assessments to evaluate foreign credentials against. If you are on the list, the commitment is that within a year the regulatory body will give you an answer on where your credentials sit in what you do.
If I could just indulge for a moment, because there is another part to this equation as well, and that is how we help individuals overseas who are coming to Canada get ready for this process and get ready to have their skills assessed.
We worked with the Association of Canadian Community Colleges to build s the CIIP, the Canadian Immigrant Integration Program. What it does is provide skills to federal skilled workers and provincial nominees overseas. It is based out of four areas: Manila in the Philippines, China, India and London, with some satellite offices. It provides a better service in terms of being able to navigate your way through the credential assessment process in Canada.
A prospective federal skilled worker will come in once a decision has been made on the application; he or she would come in, usually with a spouse as well, and sit down with a counsellor. There is sort of a general ``welcome to Canada'' kind of day and ``this is what you can expect,'' but, more to the point, there is one-on-one counselling on what is your general path to ensure you have quicker entry into the labour market with the skills you have acquired working in your profession.
This brings me to your last comment in terms of performance indicators. The numbers you see are a rough approximation to the Canadian labour market itself in terms of numbers of people working in their own profession. There are many people who do not work in what they trained for directly, so it is a rough approximation there. Sorry for the long-winded answer, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Senator Bellemare touched on something that is obviously close to your heart: a new and developing program. I guess a number of us would be wondering whether you tap into the 280,000 to whom you said, ``Sorry, we cannot look at your application; you are a skilled worker.'' Now you are talking about needing skilled workers. Do you ever look through that 280,000 plus to whom you gave back their money and told them sorry, and then tell them that maybe there is a chance now and to apply again?
Ms. Tapley: Before the government announced refunds, we call it the pre-Bill C-50 backlog. This is a backlog that existed, or applicants who had put their applications in. There is a difference, of course, between individuals and principal applicants themselves. The principal applicant number is about 98,000, a little lower. The larger number is the number of individuals, so an application might also have a spouse or dependent children, and that is where we get to bigger numbers.
We did look at that. We looked at a number of things. As you know, Mr. Chair, there is a program called the Provincial Nominee Program. Provinces are allocated so many spaces for workers that they can nominate directly.
We went to the provinces and said we thought there were valuable sources of talent, skilled workers, in the pre-Bill C-50 backlog. We worked with them to set up a program where they could, for lack of a better word, mine the backlog to look for particular workers or skills they had. Ontario came forward and was quite successful in making a number of matches for the Provincial Nominee Program out of the backlog.
The Chair: Thank you. I am mindful of time and we have another half hour. I have six senators who have indicated an interest discussing matters with you, so that will be five minutes per senator.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question has to do with immigration loans. Your report on plans and priorities sets out the expected results for the immigration loan sub-program.
It states that 99 per cent of settled refugees receive transportation loans and that 100 per cent receive assistance loans. I was wondering what the amount was annually. Approximately how much do those loans account for, in total? It is on page 19 of the English version. Also, is there any repayment?
So what is the total amount of the loans? Are they repaid? And if so, how does that work?
Mr. Manchanda: As you just mentioned, we have a loan program in place. The total amount of outstanding loans is currently $40.8 million.
[English]
Senator Chaput: Outstanding?
Mr. Manchanda: Yes, at this point in time. We issue loans to largely resettled refugees. Some were privately sponsored refugees. These are to provide transportation loans to bring them to Canada. There is repayment; the loans are repaid. We have repayment terms in place, and we have, over time, a very high repayment rate. Over 90 per cent of the loans are repaid. These loans provide an opportunity for these individuals who do not have the means to come to Canada with funds to travel to Canada.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Approximately how many immigrants does that $48 million represent? How many loans?
Mr. Manchanda: I believe it is $40.8 million. Did I say $48 million?
Senator Chaput: You said 48.
Mr. Manchanda: It is $40 million. I do not have the exact figures, but I believe it represents approximately 6,000 annually.
Senator Chaput: Approximately 6,000 annually. Very good.
Mr. Manchanda: I do not have the exact figures with me.
The Chair: Do you have them at your office?
Mr. Manchanda: Yes, we could provide them to the committee.
The Chair: Please. That would be appreciated.
Senator Chaput: Now, with respect to the statutory items, there seems to be quite a significant difference when we compare the main estimates for 2013-14 with those for 2012-13. What are the statutory items and why is the difference so high? It goes from 56,916 to 152, on page II-107 of the English version.
Mr. Manchanda: You are right; it is quite a significant difference.
[English]
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, there is an increase of $96 million between the 2012-13 and the 2013-14 estimates, and those monies have been provided to us for the federal skilled worker refund, for the fee refunds. Of that, $95.5 million is monies we will be returning to the files that were terminated as part of our backlog reduction exercises.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: One of the decreases listed is an amount of $3.7 million due to the sunsetting of funding for the Community Historical Recognition Program. What is that historical program? What type of an initiative was it?
Ms. Tapley: It is a former government program that was aimed at establishing certain monuments and other things.
[English]
The Community Historical Recognition Program was time-limited, and it recognized events in a number of communities. We worked with the Italian community; we worked with the East Indian community in Canada to recognize certain events of historic significance, some not so positive but important to recognize under this program. Events on the West Coast related to Canada's turning away people of East Indian origin trying to enter Canada earlier in the past century.
Senator Chaput: It will be replaced? It is done and finished?
Ms. Tapley: That program is finished.
Senator Buth: I have two questions. One to start is very basic. I found that when announcements were made about the skilled worker program and immigration and then some of the support for refugees, many people did not understand the difference between the immigration program and the refugees. Can you please give us a fairly brief overview of the immigration program versus the refugee program?
Ms. Tapley: Sure. I will ask my colleague Mr. Orr to help me on this one. The Federal Skilled Worker Program is for workers selected for their skills to come to Canada. In the numbers you will hear for skilled workers, it will also include immediate dependents — spouses and dependent children.
For refugees, I will say there are three types of refugees. There are refugees selected overseas. We work closely with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees to resettle refugees in Canada through government-assisted refugees and privately sponsored refugees. Church groups and other groups of people would get together to help sponsor refugees directly.
There are also those who claim asylum in Canada, those who come to the border or within Canada and claim asylum and say ``I am a refugee.'' Those are counted in our numbers of refugees.
Mr. Orr: I will carry on from that briefly. Within the levels plan presented to Parliament each year, all those categories are included in the number we expect and anticipate each year. It would have the economic portion of the program. It would also have the family reunification part, but also the refugee numbers are included in the levels plan each year. It all fits into the overall target of approximately 250,000 people per year.
Obviously the criteria for the three broad categories are quite different. My colleague has essentially outlined the three categories within the refugee area.
Senator Buth: If there is clearly a crisis in some country, as has happened in the past, and Canada agrees to accept additional refugees, what do you do in terms of planning for your budget? How do you handle that?
Mr. Orr: It would vary in different circumstances. Each one has been in a different area, but we try to respond in the most effective way we can. It may be within the levels plan; it may be outside the levels plan or in addition to the levels plan. We may need extra money to respond in an effective way. In all those circumstances we are doing so generally in an international effort in cooperation with other countries which are interested in resettlement and also coordinated with the UNHCR.
Senator Buth: If you need additional dollars, those would come in supplementary estimates?
Mr. Orr: That is right.
Senator Buth: I would like to know more about the sharing of immigration information with the U.S. In your comments you gave some background. You will share information on all applications for temporary or permanent resident visas, work or study permits for refugee protection claims. When do you share that information? It says here on all applications. Do you share the information only on successful ones or on every application that comes into Canada, and is there reciprocity? Does the U.S. share with us?
Ms. Tapley: Canada and the U.S. signed an immigration information sharing treaty. This was one of the deliverables that the Prime Minister and the President agreed to under the Beyond the Border initiative they signed about a year and a half ago.
It provides two parts to this. One is to share biographic information — name, date of birth, very basic biographic information. A second part will include biometric information once we have our biometric program up and running, which has been announced. We estimate we will share about 2 million biographic files a year with the U.S. and they will share about 12 million with us. Neither country retains those records. This is something we have worked on very carefully with the Privacy Commissioner. ``Is this person known to you?'' is what we are really asking one another.
We ran a pilot project with the Five Country Conference. These are five countries we deal with that are of like minds when it comes to immigration: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. We shared 3,000 biometric files from our refugee population, and 40 per cent of those files reached a match with the U.S. In other words, these were individuals we knew in common, and it provided additional sources of information for us to help make decisions.
Senator Buth: They would have been applying from the U.S. in addition to Canada then?
Ms. Tapley: Yes, or somehow had a relationship with the U.S.
Senator Black: First, may I commend you all on the work that your department is doing. I come from Alberta, where there is a tremendous mismatch between the skilled jobs to be filled and the ability to fill them. My question is going to come to what you are doing today and on what timeline to fix that problem.
My impression, which is based principally on my experience in Alberta and Saskatchewan, is that the economic ability of Canada to move forward has, unfortunately, been held back by your department. There has been a lot of frustration directed to your department over the last number of years, and obviously you have picked that up, because the car was so broken that we did not even try to fix it, we just threw it out and refunded the money. That is fine; that is the past.
Going forward, on what kind of urgent basis will your department be addressing the needs of the Canadian economy, specifically the Western economy? I do not mean to appear aggressive, but this is a problem.
Ms. Tapley: I will speak about three things. First, I will come to the expression-of-interest system about which I spoke earlier. This is a new immigration system that we hope to have in place by the end of 2014, ready for 2015. This will enable us to make better matches between the needs of the labour market and what the immigration system can provide. For provinces like Alberta, this becomes a very important step in being able to fill skills gaps.
Second, I will speak about the provincial nominee program, which has been very successful. Alberta has done well by this program. It has helped Canada generally by moving immigration further out from Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, the three principal cities to which immigrants come. Alberta had 5,000 spaces, or 5,000 applicants, who will come with dependents as well. Last year and this year, I believe it is 5,500. It is important for Alberta to have direct control over matching its own labour market needs with the information that is there.
Third, and I mention this with a bit of trepidation, is the Temporary Foreign Worker Program, which has been very helpful for Alberta in terms of filling some gaps in the labour market, particularly in the resource extraction industry.
The first two things have worked well and the third we think will be excellent for provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, which are seeing a net increase in immigration over previous years.
Senator Black: Thank you very much.
Do you believe that your department has the resources to do what you have just spoken about? That is the right track. Do you have the resources to execute on a timely basis?
Ms. Tapley: Far be it from me to say that we could not always use more money, but we believe that we have the resources to carry out the agenda I have spoken of.
Senator Black: Can you talk about the exciting Start-Up Visa Program? That is wonderful for Canada. Is it working? Are we getting applicants?
Ms. Tapley: The short answer is that we do not know yet. We hope so. This is a new, experimental program that the minister has announced. It matches entrepreneurs with venture capitalists in Canada. It is a bit like the CBC show Dragons' Den. Immigrants who want to come to Canada who are entrepreneurs and have very good start-up ideas can apply through this program. We work closely with venture capitalists in those firms. A panel of venture capitalists has to agree that this is a good idea and they have to be prepared to invest money in it. This program has received a great deal of publicity of late and has garnered a lot of attention in Silicon Valley in the U.S. We are anxious to see how it works. We have not seen results yet, but we are keen to see what happens.
Senator Black: Do you have the resources to execute this?
Ms. Tapley: Yes.
Senator Black: Thank you very much.
Senator Callbeck: Thank you for coming this morning. With respect to the expression of interest, has the older skilled worker program been completely cancelled?
Ms. Tapley: The Federal Skilled Worker Program is alive and well. Until we replace it with an expression-of-interest system, it will remain in place.
Senator Callbeck: Of the 280,000 people, probably 100,000 have been rejected and their fees are being sent back. Can they apply again?
Ms. Tapley: Yes.
Senator Callbeck: Under the expression of interest they apply and have to meet certain criteria. Do they send the fee when they apply or after they have been accepted?
Ms. Tapley: That is a good question. We are toying with whether there would be an upfront fee on a first expression of interest. There would certainly be a fee with the full immigration application, but whether we will require a fee up front is a question we are still struggling with.
Senator Callbeck: I see that you are asking for $4 million more for advertising. What is the total amount you spend on advertising, and what is your main audience? Do you use social media?
Ms. Tapley: We certainly do use social media. Beginning with the minister, the minister is very active on social media, but we also use Twitter and Facebook. We use a number of videos. We have made huge improvements to our website to make it more usable for new Canadians, prospective immigrants and those who are here. We focus on attracting immigrants through our website and other places as well as on people who are here being able to use our website and the tools on it to navigate settlement services.
We have a Come to Canada Wizard where you can fill in your information to learn how many points you would get and in what areas you might be short. We also have a Settlement Wizard. If you are in Canada, you can type in your information and learn what services are available for you in the area in which you live.
Mr. Orr: In December we completely revamped our website and made significant improvements. We are getting very positive responses. People are finding it easier to use, easier to find the information they want.
We have also instituted a help centre, which has some 500 answers to questions that are frequently asked. Because of that, the call centre is receiving far fewer questions. There have been something like 77,000 fewer questions to the call centre because people are getting answers through the online systems that are in place.
We are also monitoring social media to see what the frequently asked questions are. We try to respond appropriately to generic questions on social media as well. That is an upfront pilot, and we will see how that moves.
Mr. Manchanda: The majority of our funding used for advertising is geared toward newcomers and, in particular, to services for them. This year the campaign will focus on providing information on foreign credential recognition, which we talked about earlier, family reunification through parents and grandparents, and the super visa program that we have in place.
Due to the number of changes we are making to the program, this is one of our primary means to communicate with newcomers with respect to those changes. In previous years, we have done similar campaigns. They have been geared towards, once again, services to newcomers, providing awareness of our programs and services to ensure they have a quick and seamless access to the information and resources available in Canada. We have also in the past done advertising to combat immigration fraud. This is related to unscrupulous immigration consultants and to make newcomers aware of the possibility of fraud with respect to some of these individuals.
Senator Callbeck: What is the total amount for advertising?
Mr. Manchanda: The amount to be spent is $4 million for 2013-14. I also have previous years' spending figures, if you would like those.
Senator Callbeck: It is not adding $4 million; it is just $4 million?
Mr. Manchanda: Yes.
Senator McInnis: Thank you for coming. It is commonly known in Atlantic Canada that immigrants come and then quickly head off to Montreal, Toronto, Calgary or Vancouver. Immigrants, particularly those who come with a business plan, can be very good for the economy. For example, 15 or 20 years ago, they did not know one another when they arrived in Nova Scotia, but seven individuals came from Lebanon. Of the top 10 developers in Nova Scotia, they are number 7. It was tremendously successful.
Your department develops Canada's admissibility programs, and I rather suspect you set certain terms and conditions. This is almost supplementary to what you were talking about with respect to Senator Black's question. I take it there are a number of individuals who would like to come to Canada with a business plan, and you have talked about connecting them with venture capital organizations.
What control do you have in linking them to certain regions of the country? For example, could you say, ``You are coming to Canada with the business plan. We would like for you to locate in Atlantic Canada''? Is that possible?
I note in your estimates that there is permanent economic residence, something like $135 million that is there. What is the purpose of that? Could you explain that as well?
My question is this: What control do you have as to where they go in terms of coming to and investing in Canada?
Ms. Tapley: We have a lot of control over where they go and not much over where they stay. That is how I would put it. Certainly if you are coming to Nova Scotia, for example, as part of an immigrant investor program, or you are coming to Alberta as a provincial nominee, you need to actually show up in the province. You need to be there. However, once you are there, then mobility rights and the Charter kick in and you can move from one location to another.
A lot of provinces have spent a great deal of time, effort and money on making sure there is infrastructure for immigrants to stay in their province when they arrive. Manitoba has done a lot of work in this area to ensure they have a climate that is welcoming and open, and to foster that. From our perspective — and this does not relate so much to business plans — it is the money we spend on settlement and integration once people are here. We spend close to $1 billion a year on settlement and integration. A good chunk of that, $285,000, goes to Quebec in recognition of the accord and the work that they do. The remainder of the monies we spend throughout the rest of Canada based on a formula on where immigrants settle in Canada. We use that money for things such as language training but also welcoming community initiatives and other integration supports to make sure that people feel comfortable where they have landed.
Senator McInnis: No place could be more welcoming than Atlantic Canada. It is interesting; you also have in the estimates $58 million for resettlement assistance. What is that?
Ms. Tapley: Resettlement assistance focuses on refugees. Settlement assistance focuses on other parts of the population. As someone from New Brunswick, Mr. Chair, I could not possibly agree more.
The Chair: I would have to agree on that, too.
Senator McInnis: I find that immigrants are a great source of building the economy. They bring diverse ideas, and they are diligent and tenacious in terms of workers getting businesses going. As you know, in Atlantic Canada there is high unemployment. I realize that once they are there under Charter rules, you cannot just keep them. However, surely something could be done, as the terms and conditions of entering Canada, that they will settle, for at least a period of time, in the area they have been designated to go. Is that not possible?
Ms. Tapley: It is tricky.
Mr. Orr: Essentially, the Charter kicks in the moment they have arrived, as Ms. Tapley mentioned. However, there are a lot of efforts to look at, particularly on the business side, in terms of what people want to do, whether it makes sense, looking at the project, and there is often a geographic aspect to that. A lot of work is being done to give people information ahead of time so they know what they are getting into when they go to a particular part of the country, why they choose one place over another, so that hopefully they are making an informed choice of where they go right off the bat.
Ms. Tapley: Australia faces similar issues to Canada. One of the issues they face is a problem with physicians in rural Australia. They have some programs for attracting physicians to rural Australia and working with their states on some accommodation around that, and they have been fairly successful. It is something that some provinces are looking at here and we are a bit curious about it as well.
Senator Gerstein: Thank you, panel, for being here.
Mr. Orr, I believe you said the level of immigration to Canada in 2013 is approximately 250,000 people.
If I may go, Mr. Manchanda, to your comments, and just a clarification on the word ``and.'' You say you will welcome approximately 158,600 immigrants and their dependents.
First, does the word ``and'' mean including or plus their dependents?
Mr. Manchanda: That would include the dependents.
Senator Gerstein: My question, then, is the following: Are the majority of immigrants coming in as family units?
Mr. Orr: Yes, I think the majority are.
Senator Gerstein: What is the size? In other words, if you saying 158,000 people are taking advantage of our various economic immigration programs, is the family size four; the male and female take the position, and there are two or three dependents? How does the equation work out?
Mr. Orr: Generally, a family is 3.2 people or something of that nature. I am not sure how ``.2'' works, but that is the average family size that comes in overall.
Senator Gerstein: The 250,000, in effect, is divided by 3.2 in terms of the number of individuals who may actually take up a working position?
Mr. Orr: The number of applications, if you like, yes.
Senator Gerstein: That then leads me to this question: You talk about the economic immigration programs. You next refer to Canada's long-standing humanitarian tradition and family reunification goals. How do you establish the balance out of roughly the quarter million coming in between how much is allocated to jobs and how much is allocated to family reunification?
Mr. Orr: The first point I would like to make on that is that people in all categories can contribute economically. It is not just those chosen for economic means who can contribute that way.
Second, the ratio has generally been about 60 per cent economic, 40 per cent non-economic, but it is changing gradually to a goal of 70 per cent economic, 30 per cent non-economic.
The Chair: We are finished the first round. I have three names on my list. I would ask if our witnesses could make note of the questions, and we would then ask you to provide us with written answers to those questions. I think it is important that senators get their points on the record. If you send your replies to Ms. Turner, our clerk, they will be circulated to everyone.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question concerns your advertising. No doubt, you advertise in both of Canada's official languages, and I believe you also advertise in other languages. If so, I would like a list of the other languages in which you undertake advertising campaigns in other countries.
Next, you list a decrease of $2.3 million pertaining to funding for the Official Languages Action Plan.
When the federal government announced the roadmap, your department contributed funding. How much did your department agree to contribute, and what programs or initiatives does that amount correspond to?
Senator Bellemare: My questions have to do with the consistency in the delivery of immigration services. In your strategic plan, you indicate that you will resume service delivery in Manitoba and British Columbia. Why are you resuming service delivery in those provinces? What are the parameters involved?
At the same time, I see that you are targeting consistent service delivery across Canada. We know there are specific agreements, in particular, the one with Quebec, which is an authority in this field. Nonetheless, you are looking to achieve a target of about 80 per cent in terms of the percentage of services offered by Quebec that are comparable to those offered across the rest of the country. I would like more details on the criteria for the comparison between Quebec and the rest of the country. Thank you for your presentation.
[English]
Senator Callbeck: I have two short questions. You mentioned the Community Historical Recognition Program, and you mentioned different parts of Canada. You did not mention Atlantic Canada. I am wondering whether any events will have to be cancelled because this funding is being decreased.
You also mentioned a decrease of $34.5 million to savings identified as part of the Budget 2012 spending review. I would like to have a list of what makes up that $34.5 million, what programs, if there are fewer people, whatnot. Thank you.
The Chair: On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would thank Citizenship and Immigration Canada, Ms. Tapley, Mr. Manchanda and Mr. Orr, for being here. We look forward to receiving your written responses to the various items that are outstanding.
In our second panel, we are pleased to welcome a panel of officials from Public Safety Canada. We welcome John Ossowski, Associate Deputy Minister; and Gary Robertson, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch. From Correctional Services of Canada, we welcome Don Head, Commissioner; and Liette Dumas-Sluyter, Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services.
I understand that Mr. Ossowski and Mr. Head each have brief opening remarks. We will begin with Public Safety Canada and then move to Correctional Service of Canada. Once the opening remarks are done, we will have approximately five minutes for each senator to pose questions or make comments. Mr. Ossowski, please proceed.
[Translation]
John Ossowski, Associate Deputy Minister, Public Safety Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable senators. It is a pleasure to be here to discuss the 2013-14 main estimates and the 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities for Public Safety Canada.
[English]
I will turn first to the 2013-14 Main Estimates for the department of Public Safety Canada, which is seeking a funding approval of $440.9 million. This represents a net increase of $8.2 million, or 1.9 per cent, over fiscal year 2012- 13 Main Estimates.
Honourable senators, major increases for Public Safety in the 2013-14 Main Estimates include $38.2 million to provide financial support for the 2011 flood mitigation measures, $2.9 million for ongoing efforts to make our cyber networks secure and resilient, $2.5 million for national security and emergency management initiatives under the Beyond the Border action plan and $1.8 million for funding for the Kanishka research project.
I would like to add that these increases are offset by the following decreases: $15.8 million as a result of the saving measures announced in Budget 2012; $14.8 million as a result of the sunsetting of a two-year temporary funding arrangement for the sustainability of agreements under the First Nations Policing Program; and $7.9 million due to the completion of ex gratia payments to the families of the victims of Air India Flight 182.
[Translation]
I will now turn to the report on plans and priorities, which sets out Public Safety Canada's strategic outcomes, programs, expected results and priorities, as well as our planned spending, over a three-year period.
[English]
The 2013-14 RPP forecasts planned spending to be approximately $433 million. This is a 30 per cent decrease in the 2013-14 planned expenditures versus the 2012-13 forecast of $631 million. By way of explanation, our department received a one-year funding increase in 2012-13 to meet current obligations under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements, or the DFAA. We are currently seeking additional authorities through supplements for the balance of outstanding obligations.
Honourable senators, through the DFAA, our department assists Canadians when natural disasters strike by sharing eligible disaster response and recovery expenses with the provinces and territories.
Additionally, the federal government has committed to provide a one-time 50-50 cost-shared investment in permanent flood mitigation measures taken by provinces and territories, specifically related to the 2011 flooding in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Quebec.
To help lessen the impact of natural disasters on communities, we will continue to explore a new national mitigation program in consultations with the provinces and territories.
On a final note, I would mention that the department will be seeking incremental authorities through the supplementary estimates to support the federal government's March 4 commitment to maintain stable funding for policing agreements with First Nations and Inuit communities under the First Nations Policing Program for the next five years.
[Translation]
In summary, our department remains committed to keeping Canadians safe while ensuring taxpayers' dollars are used in the most efficient and effective manner.
Thank you, and I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.
[English]
Don Head, Commissioner, Correctional Service of Canada: Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee. It is a pleasure to return today to discuss the Correctional Service of Canada's Main Estimates for the 2013-14 fiscal year as well as the expenditures set out in our organization's 2013-14 Report on Plans and Priorities.
With me today is Liette Dumas-Sluyter, Assistant Commissioner, Corporate Services and our chief financial officer. She is a key member of my executive committee and helps to ensure we meet our financial and corporate obligations.
Honourable senators, you are likely aware that the Correctional Service of Canada, which I will refer to as CSC, contributes to public safety by administering court-imposed sentences for offenders sentenced to two years or more. CSC has a presence across the country, managing institutions for men and women, mental health treatment centres, Aboriginal healing lodges, community correctional centres and parole offices where offenders under conditional release in the community are supervised.
Mr. Chair, I would like to stress that CSC has taken a comprehensive approach to planning for fiscal year 2013-14. As a result, it is well positioned to manage its commitments to fiscal responsibility and its contribution to the safety and security of Canadian citizens, while remaining focused on its mission, mandate and values. CSC's plans are concentrated in core areas of correctional responsibility and operations, meeting its corporate priorities, entrenching and building on its transformation themes and identifying and mitigating key areas of risk.
As members of this committee are likely aware, there are a variety of challenges that the federal correctional system is currently dealing with that impact but not necessarily impede our organization. CSC's dedicated staff works tirelessly to ensure that our focus is on public safety.
As was tabled in the House of Commons on February 25, 2013, the total funding sought in CSC's Main Estimates for 2013-14 is $2.59 billion. This figure represents a net decrease of $428.4 million, or 14.2 per cent, from the previous year, $327.5 million of which is a decrease in operating expenses and $100.9 million of which is a decrease in capital expenses.
The reduction is mainly attributable to the return of funds related to the projected inmate population growth, which has not materialized as originally forecasted. The return of these funds amounts to $203.9 million for 2013-14. The reduction can also be attributed to the total savings identified as part of the Budget 2012 Economic Action Plan, which amounted to $170.2 million.
Furthermore, CSC is implementing various cost-saving measures that increase offender accountability, achieve administrative efficiencies and streamline operations and program delivery.
In terms of our staff complement, at this time CSC plans to utilize 19,023 full-time equivalents in 2013-14, which represents a 1,249, or 6.2 per cent, decrease from the information contained in the 2012-13 report on plans and priorities. The major driver for hiring additional staff in the CSC is the inmate population. In the 2012-13 RPP, the full-time equivalents estimate for fiscal year 2013-14 was 20,272, which did not factor in the return of funds related to the revised projections for inmate population growth or the impact of Budget 2012.
CSC's 2013-14 RPP was tabled in the House of Commons on March 28, 2013, and is based on planned spending levels established in the Main Estimates. It reflects the organization's continued contribution to public safety through the provision of safe and reasonable custody of offenders, effective interventions and supervision of offenders in the community. It also explains how CSC will continue to enhance offender accountability, eliminate drugs from institutions, improve correctional programs and update employment skills of offenders, while strengthening our correctional model.
Mr. Chair, CSC takes a prudent approach to its financial management, which is clearly reflected in our 2013-14 Main Estimates and Report on Plans and Priorities. As I am sure members of this committee can appreciate, CSC constantly assesses and adjusts the allocation of resources to ensure it effectively and efficiently supports successful offender rehabilitation and enhance community safety.
CSC continues to adapt to the realities of our national and global fiscal environment while ensuring it delivers the most relevant, appropriate and effective interventions to meet the needs of a more complex and more diverse offender population.
I am confident that CSC is well positioned to meet the challenges associated with the implementation of its Budget 2012 Economic Action Plan, while at the same time ensuring it will continue to deliver the public safety results Canadians expect.
Mr. Chair and honourable senators, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, and at this time, I welcome any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Head and Mr. Ossowski.
First, let me thank you for your comment that you plan to go to supplementary estimates for additional funding. It may well be that we will have supplementary estimates before the end of June, and we may need you back for an explanation at that time.
Looking at the Main Estimates, I am at page II-289 of the English version, and I see a comparison. You had given us a comparison of mains to mains, but if we look at the total estimate for the year just ending, the difference between your main estimate and the total amount through the various supplementary estimates was almost 50 per cent more, $200 million more than you asked for in the mains.
Should we anticipate that you will be looking in supplementary estimates for a similar type of increase over the Main Estimates for this year?
Mr. Ossowski: That is correct. The large difference is that we have gone through the cabinet process now for the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements bill. We will be seeking the additional funds to maintain the funding level we projected, based on expenses and the agreements that we have with provinces and territories, so we will be coming back. Last year, we had one year's worth of money provided to us; this will provide some subsequent years.
The Chair: I expect we may want you to come back and help us with more detail in relation to that when it happens, assuming it will happen. In the meantime, we will go ahead with what you are estimating in your Main Estimates.
Senator Black: Thank you very much for being here. In terms of Public Safety, can you discuss cybersecurity in terms of where you are at, where Canada is at and how we work with our partners internationally? Are we keeping abreast?
Mr. Ossowski: Thank you for the question. Yes, we have a fairly robust strategy, which has just been released to the public in the last few days. This afternoon, the deputy minister will be responding to the Auditor General's report at the Public Accounts Committee.
It is a constant threat. It is always evolving; it is never one of those problems where you say, ``Let us do this and that will solve it for a while.'' Unfortunately, since the Internet is essentially lawless, people will always look to take advantage of it.
That said, we do have a good approach in place, with the three pillars of our strategy. First, we are getting the government house in order in terms of our own security of government systems. Working with the private sector is the second pillar of that strategy. Finally, we are working with individual Canadians to find out what they can do to protect themselves better.
For the first part of the strategy, we have done a lot in protecting our own systems and ensuring we are adequately ready to respond should breaches occur. There is more work to be done with the private sector; there is a lot of unevenness. Therefore, we have established sector tables with the various critical infrastructure sectors.
Senator Black: Do you prioritize the sectors?
Mr. Ossowski: I would not say they are prioritized, per se, but I would say they are uneven. It will take some work to bring them all to different levels. Some of them have more wherewithal than others in terms of putting resources into mitigation efforts or strategies to deal with the threats they might be facing.
We work closely with the Americans on this because there is a lot of cross-shared critical infrastructure. It is an evolving problem. The next focus for us will be on the private sector.
Senator Black: If I could move to another area, would your department have had a role with respect to the thwarted alleged terrorist attack on Via Rail? If so, explain to us how the various departments react in such a situation.
Mr. Ossowski: The primary responsibility to conduct those investigations lies with the RCMP and CSIS. Due to the legislative authorities, they have an operational distance — arm's length — to manage that. We get involved in understanding what it might mean in terms of ensuring the minister is kept abreast of these types of things. It is more of a coordination effort as opposed to anything actually involved. In fact, they have legislation they are specifically responsible for executing, and we stay away from that.
Senator Black: Good. Thank you very much.
May I ask one more question of the Correctional Service of Canada?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Black: In terms of correctional services, we know there is a reduction. I hear from your comments that the reduction is because of a decline in inmate population, which sounds like a good thing to me, actually. However, I am concerned when I review this and the documents that we are closing two major prisons. The government has an agenda of being tough on crime and sentencing, et cetera. Are you able to execute your responsibilities with less money?
Mr. Head: Thank you for that question. The short answer is yes; we are able to achieve the mandate we have with the resources allocated to us.
Senator Black: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Black; it was within the one minute. I appreciate that.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Welcome to our committee. I would like to discuss homeland security. I would like to know whether you have access to citizens' personal credit card data in Canada, like the Department of Homeland Security does in the U.S. When American banks issue customers credits cards in the U.S., the documentation they provide advises customers that the transactions made with the card are accessible to the Department of Homeland Security.
In Canada, do we have a similar system or a system under which we share that information?
[English]
Mr. Ossowski: I am not aware of any exchange of information on credit card information, no. Mr. Robertson, are you aware of anything?
Gary Robertson, Chief Financial Officer and Assistant Deputy Minister, Corporate Management Branch, Public Safety Canada: No. Typically FINTRAC would be responsible for any of the financial system management and interaction with the banks and their equivalent agencies in the U.S.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is not quite the answer I was expecting. Our committee just completed its report on money laundering, so I am quite familiar with the way FINTRAC operates. Right now, I am thinking more about the security agenda. I will give you an example, people who routinely travel to countries where terrorists are trained; they fly there and use their credit cards. The Americans use that information to build profiles of individuals likely to be monitored. I am not talking about prepaid credit cards, which are often used for money-laundering or terrorism- related purposes; I am talking about personal credit cards that people use to make purchases in other countries. Do we have such a system in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Ossowski: Not that I am aware of, no.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is good news. I am very glad. Now, can you tell us the proportion of those currently incarcerated in Canada who are receiving a secondary or college education?
Mr. Head: As far as education goes?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Head: All of our offenders who come into the system go through an education assessment. Every offender is assessed by our staff and then referred to the teachers in our schools and institutions.
In general, the inmates start off their education programs, but not all of them finish their education, because they come in at varying levels — right from grade 1, literally, to some level of high school. Most of them come in with less than grade 8, so we try to help them increase their education levels based on those assessments. Then we very quickly try to get them positioned so they can participate in the more specific correctional programs, such as substance abuse, family violence, violence prevention and those types of programs.
In terms of success rates, in general, about 30 to 40 per cent of offenders complete their education while they are with us, but we do not necessarily see that as a bad thing. As you can appreciate, getting adults involved in education later in life is more difficult. Some of them pursue it on their own later, but getting them involved in the more critical programs that address the issues that led to their criminal behaviour is important to us.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I understand that 40 per cent of offenders are currently in programs, but I was not referring to substance abuse treatment programs and the like. I was really talking about those taking academic programs in order to get a job when they get out of prison or to continue their studies. So the figure is 40 per cent.
Mr. Head: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: So 60 per cent of them are not involved in such programs.
Mr. Head: Yes.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: As far as psychiatric services are concerned, how many full-time and part-time psychiatrists are there, and where in the country are they located?
[English]
Mr. Head: The majority of our psychiatric services are provided under contract. We have psychiatrists particularly associated with our regional treatment centres in Abbotsford; Saskatoon; Kingston, Ontario; Laval, Quebec; and Dorchester, New Brunswick. Most of the psychiatric services are provided through contractual services. As you can appreciate, those locations are difficult places to attract full-time psychiatrists, so we are sometimes competing with local communities and other health care service providers for those types of services.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Who assesses the need for psychiatric services?
[English]
Mr. Head: The whole process that we have for offenders coming into the system consists of various assessments. If there are pre-indicators of psychological or psychiatric problems, the initial assessments done by our parole officers would identify that. That would be based on interviews with the offenders, file review of documentation that might have come from the courts or any previous incarceration they might have had. Based on those assessments, the parole officers would refer the offenders to either the psychologist or the psychiatrist for initial assessments and possible follow-up, including treatment.
[Translation]
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My last question concerns a specific decision. I am not sure whether it was made at your level or not, but it has to do with prohibiting cigarettes and offering inmates a stop smoking program. Will that apply to all prisons across Canada?
[English]
Mr. Head: At the federal level, we do not allow individuals to smoke either in the buildings or on our grounds. We have not done that for almost six years now. If you are referring to some of the recent media articles, that is in relation to the Quebec provincial system.
Senator Buth: Thank you for your presentations today. My first question is for Public Safety Canada. I am interested, of course, in the financial support for 2011 flood mitigation investments because Manitoba clearly faced some serious issues in 2011, and it looks like this year could be even worse. You made a comment in your presentation that you provide 50-50 funding for permanent flood mitigation investments. Can you tell me where Manitoba is in terms of accessing those funds?
Mr. Ossowski: I understand that we are still negotiating with them regarding the proposals that they are putting forward, and so nothing is finalized yet.
Senator Buth: Where would the other provinces be?
Mr. Ossowski: I think they are all about the same. In fact, that is why some of the money has been reprofiled to sort of reflect that it is some taking time to work through these measures.
Senator Buth: In the estimates on page 290, you have two different amounts for Beyond the Border, an increase of $1 million in vote 1 and then, under Emergency Management, under vote 1, an increase of $1.1 million. Why are those amounts split into two different areas, and what are they for?
Mr. Robertson: You are on page 290.
Senator Buth: Yes, 290 of the estimates book.
Mr. Robertson: The question is related to the split?
Senator Buth: Yes.
Mr. Robertson: Principally, it would be around the nature of the funding, whether it is vote 1 or vote 5, whether it is operational funding or not. For the amount you are referring to, could you point me to the particular paragraph?
Senator Buth: At the very top of the page is vote 1, $1 million, and then, in the middle of the page, you have another amount for vote 1.
Mr. Robertson: We have structured it by PAA. In each section of the PAA, we would speak to both vote 1 operational and internal costs and vote 5 if there are any grants and contributions we would pay our partners.
Senator Buth: What is PAA?
Mr. Robertson: Program Activity Architecture, the way we communicate our departmental structure and how we operate.
The $1 million that is the focus at the beginning of the page primarily went to activities with Beyond the Border — strengthening our responsiveness, increasing trade with the U.S., et cetera. That is where that first $1 million went.
Later on in the page, depending on what it was, it would be related to the particular area that it was earmarked for. The second one was whereabouts on the page?
Senator Buth: In the middle, under Emergency Management, second bullet, another $1.1 million.
Mr. Robertson: It is related to those four primary initiatives that were wrapped into that one initiative. It is $2.4 million in total.
Senator Buth: Okay, thank you very much.
The Chair: Just to clarify the Program Activity Architecture, is that the terminology you use in the plans and priorities?
Mr. Robertson: Yes, it is actually. It is something the Treasury Board Secretariat moved all of the departments to a number of years ago. The way it works is that each department communicates how it spends based on program activities, so, in our case, we have four principal program activities and one internal service, a fifth that is sort of internal support services.
The Chair: We are starting to see that through the plans and priorities.
Senator L. Smith: You talked about the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. It is a significant amount of money. How do you plan for that? Is it ad hoc? If there is a problem, do you ask for money? Do you look back at history, see how many disasters there were and try to average it out? How do you plan for that?
Mr. Ossowski: It is a long, iterative process. Initially, after an event happens, an order-in-council is put forward to deem it be an event that is eligible for Disaster Financial Assistance funding. Then, there is a formula that has been agreed to with the provinces, an agreement that dates back to 2008. They give an initial estimate, and usually, for some of these recurring events, we have a pretty good sense of what it is. It is paid out based on audited financial claims, and they have a five-year window from when the event happened to submit claims. It is pretty good. Last year, there was bit of a bump compared to what we had anticipated when the claims finally came in, but the auditing process validates that. We had a one-year adjustment to the supplementary estimates last year, and we will be seeking, through the coming supplementary estimates, further funding for those auditable claims. I imagine that, after flooding this spring, we will probably have another round of things, and there will be another five-year window for the provinces and territories to submit those claims.
Senator Buth: I have a question for the Correctional Service of Canada. You made the comment that the estimated number of inmates did not materialize. What principles or methodology do you use to estimate the number of inmates, and why have they not materialized?
Mr. Head: Thank you for the question and the opportunity to clarify that comment.
When the estimates were being prepared back in 2008, the agency was using whatever available data it could to do its forecasts for the coming years and then to make some estimates as to what, at that time, proposed legislation might mean in terms of additional increases.
Unfortunately for us, the only available, reliable data from the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics — and this data was critical to the forecasting piece — regarding remanded offenders, the number of offenders sitting in pretrial in provincial and territorial facilities, was 2004-05 data. At that time, the data showed a continual increase in the number of remand offenders coming in. The information became the basis for all the calculations and projections.
The following year, information that became available showed that those remand numbers had started to drop in the provinces. The provinces and territories still face challenges with the percentage of remands they have under their care and custody; but those numbers started to drop and have an impact on the original projections.
We decided that relying on four-year-old data going forward every year would not help us. Therefore, our statisticians and researchers developed a more reliable forecasting model. We have just completed one full year based on the new revised numbers. For all intents and purposes, it is right on in terms of the forecast moving forward. We are quite comfortable with the new model we are using, which is not reliant on four- to five-year-old remand data.
We have made a commitment to Treasury Board that we will come back in a couple of years to show whether the model is still valid. The new model is the basis that we use for doing our forecasts and to assess any potential impacts of proposed legislation.
Senator Buth: That is very helpful.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: My question is for the Correctional Service of Canada officials. I would like to come back to one of the minister's priorities under Canada's Economic Action Plan. I am referring to the initiative whereby offenders can gain employment skills to meet labour markets and obtain employment, given that employment diminishes the likelihood of re-offending, without of course guaranteeing it 100 per cent. On page 26 of your strategic plan, page 29 in French, you provide result target zones. I would like to reconcile that information with the figure you gave us earlier. It says that education programs contribute to the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders. The target zone is set at 30 to 36 per cent for the percentage of offenders with an identified education need.
If I understand correctly, between 30 and 36 per cent of offenders with an education need are targeted. Your target zone for the percentage of offenders with an identified education need who upgrade their education prior to the warrant expiry date is between 41 and 49 per cent. That represents about 12 to 18 per cent. The same applies to the other target pertaining to offenders who have the employment skills to meet labour markets. That represents 26 per cent when you look at the two percentages.
How do you reconcile that with the figure you gave us earlier? At first glance, I found it weak, but I would like to hear your comments on the matter.
[English]
Mr. Head: Thank you for the opportunity to provide more detail around the numbers.
One of the challenges that we have with offenders coming into the system is keeping them engaged in education, their programs and their skills development. There is no disagreement that the initial targets, although they seem low, are the ones that we are working with to try to ensure that we have a solid base going forward.
It is important to remember that most offenders, on average, are with us for at least four years. We have that period of time to work with them and to try to build on the base that we have and the skills that they come in with. We have significant challenges with individuals who do not want to pursue education or programs or upgrade their skills development. Although I am not advocating for this at all, we have no ability to force them to take those programs as it would be counterproductive. We are starting with a base that would seem much lower than it should be, but we are building on that. It is hoped, through that and the successes we realize, that we can use that as a way of encouraging other offenders to participate.
At any given time, about 20 per cent of the offender population has the capacity to learn and participate in programs but refuses because there is no motivation to go forward. Part of our job when they come into the system is to get them stabilized and identify their needs, and to get them motivated and engaged in various activities as soon as possible. Research tells us that the sooner we engage the offenders in these activities, the more likely it is that they will complete them and succeed; and that if we wait too long in terms of enrolment, we will not be successful.
The targets seem low, but we are trying to build on what we know to be the reality in terms of the motivation and the capacity of offenders. At any given time, between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of the population overall, who have other problems such as mental health issues, cannot be plugged automatically into programs. We have to do stabilization to prepare them. In some cases, we may have them only long enough to stabilize them, not get them involved in any program activities.
[Translation]
Senator Bellemare: I have one last quick question. With respect to the training you provide to offenders, do you know the proportion invested in general education, as with formal education, versus that invested in vocational and technical training? Do you have any data on that, or some sense of where that stands?
[English]
Mr. Head: Yes, in terms of education, the vast majority of offenders — well over 80 per cent — come in with less than a grade 8 education. That is our starting point. Less than grade 8 means from grade 1 up to grade 8. Our goal is to try to get them at least a high school equivalency completion, which in most provinces is grade 12. You can probably appreciate the reaction we get when adults who have had other problems in their lives for so long are brought in and dropped into a classroom setting. It is simply something they do not want to do.
We look at exploring how we can provide education services to them in a different manner, realizing that adults learn differently. We continually try to do that. We use traditional classrooms and also cell studies, or one-on-one learning. We look at how we incorporate some of the basic education into some of the vocational training we provide in recognition of the fact that people learn differently. There is a challenge for us in terms of the percentage of people who come in without an education. As well, the vast majority of offenders at the time of arrest and conviction do not have meaningful employment. We always begin behind a good starting line.
Senator Callbeck: Mr. Head, you talked about managing mental health treatment centres. Are those centres in the penitentiaries?
Mr. Head: No. What I would call regional treatment centres are stand-alone psychiatric facilities that have affiliations with hospitals. The one in Quebec and the one in New Brunswick are within the confines of another facility and are not directly linked to the operations of the main institution. They operate as a stand-alone hospital within the confines of the penitentiary.
Senator Callbeck: You say that the one in Dorchester is within another facility. What facility are you talking about there?
Mr. Head: Dorchester Penitentiary.
Senator Callbeck: It is part of the penitentiary?
Mr. Head: The physical location is within there, but they operate as a stand-alone entity.
Senator Callbeck: I heard someone speak not long ago who indicated that when the mental health treatment centres are outside the prisons, it is more beneficial for the offenders. Do you agree, and is there any discussion in the department about that?
Mr. Head: It is a very current discussion in my organization. When we look at, for example, the two facilities we have out West, the ones in Abbotsford and Saskatoon are truly stand-alone institutions and have different approaches and results. However, I think you are possibly talking about facilities outside of the control of the Correctional Service of Canada. We have arrangements, memorandums of understanding with some facilities and we are currently pursuing that with three or four others right now to deal with some of the more challenging cases we have.
Senator Callbeck: Have you done assessments on the ones you have?
Mr. Head: Yes, the ones that we have are reviewed on a regular basis. For example, at the Regional Psychiatric Centre in Saskatoon there is a board of governors which includes individuals from the University of Saskatchewan who are involved in the strategic discussions moving forward. All our hospitals must be accredited and receive the appropriate accreditation to provide the psychiatric services that we provide to offenders.
Senator Callbeck: When the analysis is done, is the bottom line that it is much better for offenders with mental health problems if they are in a facility that is not attached to the penitentiary?
Mr. Head: It is a still an open-ended question that we are going through. We are looking at options. One of the challenges we have, as well as those that are not under the control of the Correctional Service of Canada, is the willingness of offenders to participate in the programs that are offered in those facilities. When an individual refuses to participate, most of those psychiatric hospitals are not allowed to keep individuals under the manner in which they are accredited. Even in cases where we have sent people outside of our own psychiatric facilities, when the offender has withdrawn consent to be there or to participate in programs, those facilities have been forced to send them back to us, which again places the challenge back on us. There are challenges both ways, and we try to find the best solution on a case-by-case basis. As you can imagine, with several hundred individuals who require intensive psychiatric services, there are not very many spaces across this country, not only within the penitentiary system but in society overall. Most of those services are stretched to the limit.
Senator Callbeck: In the Maritimes, the only one is at Dorchester?
Mr. Head: In the Correctional Service of Canada, yes. We are currently engaged in discussions with a facility in one of the provinces to expand our repertoire, opportunities or options for some of the most challenging individuals we have.
Senator Callbeck: I want to ask about another subject in view of time. It is on the programs that are offered to the offenders. It has come up a couple of times in terms of education, but there are a lot of other programs, such as anger management, family violence, addictions and so on. You hear from time to time that the amount of money the government is spending on these programs is actually going down. Is it possible for you to provide the committee with an outline of the programs that are offered with the dollar figures that are in this budget and then compare it with five years ago so we can actually see what is going on?
Mr. Head: Senator, I would be glad to do that. You will see there has been continuous investment in programs. Those who continue to say there has been a decrease in the investment in programs are just wrong.
The Chair: We will look forward to receiving that. That will give you your chance to clarify the record.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My first question is for the Public Safety Canada official. The budget shows a decrease in terms of dollars. You talked about the sunsetting of a two-year temporary funding arrangement for the sustainability of agreements under the First Nations Policing Program. Why is the temporary funding being sunsetted? And what is happening with First Nations policing services in the meantime?
[English]
Mr. Ossowski: The last government renewal was for a two-year time period. As I said in my opening remarks, on March 4 the minister announced that the government has now decided to take a multi-year approach, which is something the First Nations policing communities have wanted with their provincial and territorial supports. We have now signed one-year agreements and are in the process of negotiating the remaining four years of that five-year funding approval put forward by the government at the beginning of March.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: But the services are continuing. The policing services were not interrupted?
[English]
Mr. Ossowski: Yes.
Senator Chaput: They are still going on?
Mr. Ossowski: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: My next question is for the Correctional Service of Canada official. The estimates show decreases from 2012-13 to 2013-14. For example, you have the supervision of offenders in the community and in institutions. Then, once again, you have supervision in the community. Both initiatives show decreases. Is that due to the fact that the provinces are now assuming more of the cost?
[English]
Mr. Head: No; no cost is being assumed by the province in terms of our cuts. There is no off-loading of work from federal corrections to provincial or territorial corrections.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: What, then, is the decrease due to? What factors account for the decrease in spending?
[English]
Mr. Head: There are several factors at play, senator. One is in relation to what would have been initially presented in the budget documents based on that forecast that did not materialize, so those monies are reduced from the budget. The inmates did not come; therefore, we do not get the money and it is reduced from the budget base.
In addition, there are reductions as a result of our contribution to the 2012 Economic Action Plan. For 2012-13 our reduction was $85 million. For 2013-14 our reduction is $170 million, and for 2014-15 our total reduction is $295 million. Those reductions are our contribution to the government's Economic Action Plan arising out of Budget 2012.
There are other ins and outs pieces in that budget. For example, when we complete certain construction projects, the money we got for that project does not carry on to the next year. We only get monies for completing a construction project. For any future projects, we would have to go back and make presentations through the normal government channels. There are a lot of big pieces throughout the budget, the biggest ones being for the population that did not materialize — $203 million reduction between 2012-13 and 2013-14. There was $85 million in 2012-13 for our Economic Action Plan, and now it is $170 million in 2013-14 for that portion of our contribution to the Economic Action Plan.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Do the reductions arising from the economic action plan reflect staffing cuts, a reorganization of operations or the elimination of certain initiatives? What are those savings attributable to?
[English]
Mr. Head: All of the above, senator. There are issues that are related to being more effective and efficient in terms of, for example, the manner in which we ask parole officers to do their case management activities. The closures of the two penitentiaries, the Kingston Penitentiary and Leclerc Institution, equate to a net reduction of $120 million. At the same time, we are in the process of building new units within existing institutions that will give us 2,752 new cells, which will be in new buildings, which are more efficient to run than, for example, the Kingston Penitentiary site, which was built in 1835.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: One last quick question. Is it true that, over the past 10 years, federal security spending has gone up every year by approximately 4.4 per cent, representing a 53-per-cent hike in federal security spending over the past 10 years?
[English]
Mr. Head: Are you referring to public security overall or correctional services?
Senator Chaput: Yes; overall.
Mr. Head: I think there was a document produced; it might have been from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
Senator Chaput: That is where this information comes from.
Mr. Head: Yes. We have not fully analyzed all the pieces other than the corrections pieces, but the numbers we saw that were in relation to us reflected what our spending was back 10 years ago and our spending today.
Senator Chaput: Fair enough. Thank you.
Senator McInnis: I will be quick, mindful of the time. I have a question for Correctional Service of Canada. Reading through the priority of your services, one is to provide safety and security of staff and, of course, the inmates, both in the institutions and in the community. One action that you are taking is ``to continue to improve new operational procedures to eliminate the entry of illicit materials, as well as trafficking, supply and demand for drugs and contraband in institutions.''
Having toured a prison in my capacity as Attorney General, I find it amazing that they can continue to get illicit drugs through the door. How large a problem is this? Obviously it has a catastrophic effect on rehabilitating the inmates, and certainly there is a risk of abuse to the staff. How are you intending to try to curb this, if not eliminate it?
Mr. Head: Very good question, senator. I will share with you some of the initiatives that we have been pursuing.
We received an investment several years ago of approximately $122 million to help us deal with this issue. That allowed us to do a couple things. It allowed us to increase our drug detector dog teams in all our institutions across the country, which has proven to be very effective. Actually, by the time we finish implementing the final hiring of those teams, I think I will probably be the agency in the country with the most drug detector dogs of anyone. We have also enhanced our practices at the front entrances of our facilities, for visitors, contractors and staff coming in, in terms of how we search them, as well as our vehicle entry points. Both those points are places where drugs have been brought in.
As well, we have had challenges in the past where individuals have been very innovative in terms of getting drugs into the institution other than through the normal entry points. We have seen everything from arrows with drugs taped around the shaft being shot distances into the exercise yard, tennis balls being hollowed out with drugs and being knocked as far as they can by using potato guns. We have seen dead birds gutted and drugs placed in the dead bird that is then shot from a distance, using slingshots, into the exercise yards. Sorry, senators; I know it is almost lunchtime. I did not want to turn you off, but these are some of the challenges. When we tighten down in certain areas, we see people become quite innovative. However, our goal is to do everything in our power to stop them from coming in. You are absolutely right and, as you would have appreciated from your previous life, drugs in an incarceration setting are a very dangerous thing. They feed the underground economy of inmates and gangs, and they lead to violence and, on occasions, death, either individuals overdosing from the use of drugs or killing each other because drugs have not been brought in or people have not paid for their drugs. This also puts my staff at risk. This is something I do not take lightly.
We continue to look at every means available to us to stop drugs coming in, whether it is contractors or visitors. Unfortunately, senator, even a few — very few — of my own staff have been caught bringing drugs in because they have been enticed by unsavory elements of the inmate population, enticing them with significant amounts of money to bring them in. We will not condone that, so we will continue to do everything in our power to stop drugs from coming into our institutions.
Senator McInnis: I agree. Allegedly there is a nurse staff member and others in corrections in Nova Scotia who have been charged.
I have one quick question for Public Safety. It seems to be more common now to have a number of natural events. We heard Senator Buth talk about the annual disasters that take place in Winnipeg with the floods. We saw last year in Alberta a major forest fire. I recall Hurricane Juan in Nova Scotia several years ago.
How is your infrastructure for dealing with a multiplicity of these, heaven forbid they take place at the same time? In what condition are the emergency measures organizations in the provinces and in the federal government? Are you equipped to deal with more than one?
Mr. Ossowski: I believe so. It would really depend on the severity, but there have been instances of multiple events at the same time. We rely on provinces' and territories' first responders to deal with things. Then we help with the federal role, which may be in terms of coordinating our part of the response. The first response is really the provinces and territories, and their capacity is fairly robust. We all talk about the worst case scenario in terms of the big earthquake out West, if that ever happens, that kind of thing. There will be a point where people will strain; there is no doubt about it. So far, however, it all seems to be manageable.
The Chair: Colleagues, we are finished with our time. Senator Callbeck has one question she would like on the record and perhaps one of the witnesses could provide a written response to her.
Senator Callbeck: Yes, on page II-120 under Contributions, the money going to the reintegration of offenders back into the community has been cut by 50 per cent. Could you send the committee an explanation of what programs have been decreased or cut, where that 50 per cent came from?
Mr. Head, you mentioned the savings that have been attributed back in 2011-12 and 2013-14. I think you talked about something like $550 million. I wish you could send the committee an outline of where those savings came from, with specific programs. Thank you.
Mr. Head: Yes, senator, Mr. Chair, we will definitely send that information to the committee.
The Chair: Thank you. On behalf of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, I would like to thank you all for being here. Thank you very much for the good work you are doing in serving Canada. We appreciate it very much.
Colleagues, we are still waiting for word with respect to budget implementation. We will continue with our Main Estimates review so we will have that behind us. Industry Canada and Shared Services are tomorrow evening.
(The committee adjourned.)