Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Foreign Affairs and International Trade
Issue 1 - Evidence - Meeting of November 20, 2013
OTTAWA, Wednesday, November 20, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade met this day at 4:15 p.m. to examine the subject-matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4 and 16 of Part 3 of Bill C-4, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.
Senator A. Raynell Andreychuk (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we're ready to proceed today. The Standing Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade is beginning its examination of the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 4 and 16 of Part 3 of Bill C-4, A second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 21, 2013 and other measures.
Honourable senators will be aware that Division 4 relates to passports, while Division 16 amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
Today, to start our study, I'm pleased to welcome a number of department officials representing Citizenship and Immigration Canada. We have before us Ms. Caitlin Imrie, Director General, Passport Program Transition Office; Ms. Teny Dikranian, Senior Analyst, Passport Program Transition Office; Ms. Maia Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy & Planning; Mr. James McNamee, Director, Immigration Strategies and Analysis; and Mr. Jean- Pierre Lamarche, Director General, Passport Program Management and Strategic Initiatives.
There are other officials here from the Temporary Foreign Workers Program and Employment and Social Development Canada, who Mr. Carruthers has brought in case they need to be interviewed on any issues. Mr. Campion Carruthers is at the table.
I understand we'll hear from Ms. Imrie first, followed by Ms. Welbourne, after which questions can be put to any of the witnesses. Welcome to the committee. Please make your opening statements.
Caitlin Imrie, Director General, Passport Program Transition Office, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Mr. Chair, members of the committee, my name is Caitlin Imrie, Director General for the Passport Program Transition Office at CIC.
[Translation]
Madam Chair, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about Bill C-4, specifically Part 3, Division 4 related to passports. Following my opening remarks, my colleague, Ms. Welbourne, will speak to Part 3, Division 16, related to the expression of interest system.
[English]
My remarks outline the technical amendments for a transfer in responsibility for Passport Canada from Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development to Citizenship and Immigration Canada, which came into effect on July 2, 2013. There are two clauses in Division 4 that relate to passports, clause 174 and clause 175. Both of these provisions are technical amendments that reflect the transition.
The decision to transfer these responsibilities was the result of an analysis that showed the passport program to be better aligned with the mandate of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, given that citizenship is at the core of the passport program.
As part of this transfer in responsibility, Employment and Social Development Canada now provides in Canada delivery of passport services, while the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development continues to deliver services overseas.
Changes to the legislation that are included in the Budget Implementation Act include updates to provisions of the Criminal Code and the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act that reflect this transfer in responsibility between departments. The Criminal Code will be amended to link it to the interpretation section of the Canadian Passport Order, which now defines passports as documents issued by the minister of CIC.
[Translation]
The Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act will also be updated to reflect the fact that travel documents are now issued by the minister of CIC as well. I will now turn the floor over to my colleague, Maia Welbourne, who will speak to the clauses in Division 16 on the expression of interest system.
Maia Welbourne, Senior Director, Strategic Policy & Planning, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to speak to you today about the subject matter of part 3, division 16 of Bill C-4.
[English]
Madam chair, members of the committee, my remarks will provide an overview of the foundational legislation required to implement a new approach to Canada's immigration system. Based on Australia and New Zealand's experiences with the Expression of Interest model, also known as EOI, CIC is working with partners to develop a similar system for Canada.
As members of this committee may be aware, the Government of Canada has made the reform of the immigration system an important priority. Economic Action Plan 2013 announced — and the recent Speech from the Throne confirmed — the government's intention to move to an Expression of Interest model. Along with other modernization initiatives, EOI will be a key component in creating a faster and more flexible immigration system.
The Expression of Interest model is a new electronic, fully automated application management system that will apply to certain economic immigration streams. Creating the new system requires legislative changes to establish a two- step application process — introducing the concept of a stand-alone Expression of Interest pre-application stage, followed by an application by invitation only to the top candidates. The candidates invited to apply will be those with the right mix of high human capital, ability to work in Canada as demonstrated by an offer of employment and/or nomination by a province or territory.
It is important to be clear that the Expression of Interest system is not a new program, nor does it replace any existing skilled immigration program. The EOI system is a new component within an existing Government of Canada system. It builds on our existing IT infrastructure and the global case management system.
Before describing the automated processes that are possible with an Expression of Interest system, I will review EOI's key objectives. Primarily, the introduction of EOI is designed to improve application management. By only issuing invitations to apply to the number of applicants that we can process, we will prevent the inventories that have accumulated in the past and the associated legal risk. The new system will facilitate the arrival of the candidate best suited to Canada's needs, rather than the first person who applied. Aligning these applications to processing capacity and eliminating time spent waiting in inventories will support faster processing times.
A second feature of this system is its ability to increase the immigration system's labour market responsiveness. Evidence suggests that the selection of skilled immigrants with high levels of human capital, such as higher education, strong official language skills and relevant work experience, leads to better economic outcomes, both initially and over time. We also know that immigrants who come with an offer of employment in hand have significantly better outcomes than those who come without. The Expression of Interest systems seeks to combine the strengths of the human capital model with the benefits of having skilled immigrants arriving in Canada with employment, ready to work. Reducing unemployment and underemployment for permanent residence economic class immigrants will help to improve overall economic outcomes, both for the new arrivals and for the Canadian economy.
The EOI approach also presents an opportunity to strengthen the role of the provinces and territories in immigrant selection. The government is working with provincial and territorial partners to make EOI a success. Provinces and territories are well positioned to bring the benefits of immigration to their regions through their review and nomination of EOI candidates. The ability of provinces and territories to access EOI candidates through an EOI portal will allow EOI candidates to be invited to apply to a provincial nominee program.
We are also consulting Canadian employers so that they will be ready to consider EOI candidates that meet their skills requirements when the domestic labour force cannot. An offer of employment will play a key role in a decision to issue candidates an invitation to apply. We are working with Employment and Social Development Canada to make linkages to a modernized job bank that can be leveraged for EOI candidates. Private sector job sites are also an available platform for job matching between employers and EOI candidates.
The key objectives of EOI are to improve application management and reduce processing backlogs, to increase the labour market responsiveness of the immigration system and to strengthen the provincial, territorial and employer role.
[Translation]
These objectives, as well as improved service standards for processing times, have the potential to transform the economic immigration experience and to provide better outcomes for skilled immigrants. To understand how the expression of interest system will achieve its objectives, I will now describe the processes involved.
[English]
The EOI system will create a two-stage electronic process for managing applications. The first stage of EOI will manage applications through an automated scanning of information provided by candidates. Prospective immigrants will fill in an online form to express their interest in coming to Canada. The information collected in the EOI form, such as the person's language ability, education and work experience, will make it possible to search, sort and rank applicants. If potential applicants meet certain minimum eligibility criteria, their EOI will be accepted into the system where they will be given a score and ranked by CIC and also be searchable by both CIC and the provinces and territories.
Top candidates, in other words those with high point scores and/or a qualifying job offer and/or a provincial or territorial nomination, can be issued invitations to apply for permanent residence. Only candidates issued an invitation to apply, ITA, will be able to submit an application in certain economic immigration programs.
The specific design features that will allow EOI to be operational will continue to be refined over the next year, in time for launch in January 2015. Further design work and consultations with the provinces and territories are ongoing. Work with Employment and Social Development Canada is also underway to find linkages to their modernized job bank where employers may source EOI candidates to staff positions not met by Canada's existing labour market.
The Expression of Interest system would be enabled through a combination of legislative changes and ministerial instructions. The bill before us proposes that a new Expression of Interest division be added to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that would allow for a stand-alone pre-application stage as the first step in immigrating to Canada. In addition, this division would include broad provisions outlining the process of EOI and the required information-sharing authority, as well as measures enabling a role for third parties, that is, provinces and territories, as well as employers, under this new system.
Alongside these new legislative authorities, EOI-specific ministerial instructions, or MIs, will provide precision on how an EOI would work. Similar to the approach used in Australia and New Zealand, these instructions will include details such as which economic classes will be subject to EOI, the criteria according to which candidates would be ranked and the criteria for issuing invitations to apply.
The MIs will also set out the type of EOI candidate information that may be shared, and with which entities, such as provinces and territories and Canadian employers, as well as any related conditions required for access to that information.
The use of MIs envisioned for EOI is consistent with their current use under section 87.3 of IRPA; in the same way that they have been used to set processing priorities. EOI-specific MIs that detail stable elements of the system will be published in the Canada Gazette and on CIC's website. EOI MIs that require flexible management, including the frequency and volume of invitations to apply, will also be published on CIC's website. This approach will achieve a balance between transparency and the flexibility to administer efficiently and adjust in future phases of implementation.
In conclusion, madam chair, the government has demonstrated a firm commitment to strengthening the immigration system to make it fast and flexible in a way that will contribute to Canada's economic growth and promote positive outcomes for skilled immigrants.
[Translation]
The expression of interest system is a key part of an overall modernization agenda to achieve those objectives for Canada's immigration system.
[English]
Thank you. My colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions that you may have.
The Chair: Thank you to both of you for your presentations.
I remind senators that the passport issue was discussed in this committee previously when we were looking at the increase of fares and the issue of transfer from DFAIT, as it was at that time, to Citizenship was discussed. So you've received, I believe, the papers from those hearings for your benefit, and you can refer to those.
I should also say that the steering committee anticipates that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration will be here next week to present before us, as he could not this week, and also a representative or some representatives from either Australia or New Zealand, so that we have some comparison to what you're doing. That's the one question I want to put to Ms. Welbourne.
You say it is like New Zealand and Australia. Which is it closest to and how does it differ? You use them as models, but are they adapted towards Canada? If so, what are the adaptations?
Ms. Welbourne: We've benefited from having a number of helpful conversations with officials from both Australia and New Zealand. I would say conceptually at the model level, it's very similar in terms of the idea of a pre-application, first step being that individuals for certain economic categories having to express their interest in coming to the country before being allowed to proceed to the application stage.
In terms of big differences, I think those would be more at the program and legislative detail stage, given that both Australia and New Zealand have different legislative frameworks. New Zealand, of course, is a unitary state, so there's no provincial or territorial state or implication, so those are the kinds of areas in which you would differ. Again generally at the high-level models, it's pretty consistent.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Welcome to our committee. I am going to ask you a question that may surprise you. Given that the order transferring ministerial responsibility for passports was made more than six months ago, I would like to know if the correction that we are proceeding with today is being made because of an oversight that was leading to problems, or is it being done to provide for any problems that may arise? Second, if in fact there were problems regarding the issuance of passports, what was the impact of that?
[English]
Ms. Imrie: I'd like to make sure that I understand the question correctly. Is the question the reason for the transfer or the fact that the order predated this legislation?
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: My question is not about the transfer itself but rather about why it took so much time and whether or not you noted any oversights or problems. It has been six months now and I know that this is a considerable change, however I would also like to know if over the course of that change, you noted any problems; perhaps there were not any at all and the change is proceeding well.
Jean-Pierre Lamarche, Director General, Passport Program Management and Strategic Initiatives, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: Thank you for your question, Senator. With respect to the change, there were no problems over the six-month period and, generally speaking, these changes give the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration the ability, if necessary, to take legal action under the Criminal Code, to be able to do that in cases where passports need to be withdrawn because of incidents covered by the Criminal Code.
Currently, it is still the Minister of Foreign Affairs who, according to the order, is responsible for the passport program. Under this change, these two clauses will allow the minister to be responsible for the passport program.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: As it will not come into effect until 2015, am I correct?
Mr. Lamarche: No, there is a transitional clause for the purposes of the order. This has been established but there is a transfer clause; I believe it will be part of the second OCI which should be in March. Meanwhile, there is a clause that will allow the Minister of Foreign Affairs to take action under the Criminal Code. However, this will be transferred to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
[English]
Senator D. Smith: This is basically a version of the point system, I assume, isn't it, which has been around for decades and where you get so many points based on language abilities of the two official languages and education and what your job is. Am I missing something?
Ms. Welbourne: To take a step back, in a certain way it's maybe a variation on that. But to explain what it is, this isn't a new program or a change to a current program. It establishes, for the first time ever, a pre-application stage. Specifically, these legislative amendments would enshrine that in IRPA, the act.
Senator D. Smith: This system would sort of tell the point range you are probably in. No one gets a passport unless they're a citizen, correct?
Ms. Welbourne: Right. So there are two separate issues: the passport changes —
Senator D. Smith: So what they're sort of doing is having the people who are doing the passports do assessments of the chances of applicants who want to come to the country. Do they have a priority list for people with higher points whereas for some people who might be the best used car salesman somewhere, it's mission impossible because there's no demand for that product?
Ms. Welbourne: I will talk about the EOI portion of the changes which relate to immigration streams related to permanent residents; that is, permanent residents who come to Canada as economic permanent residents. The idea here is to establish a pre-application stage which means that, yes, individuals would have to express an interest in coming to Canada under certain economic streams. Those are to be confirmed, but at this point they look to be the Federal Skilled Worker Program, which, you're correct, has a points grid as part of the program; also the Canadian Experience Class, which doesn't; and the Federal Skilled Trades Program, which doesn't.
Senator D. Smith: I'm not saying I disagree with it, but I'm just trying to get a feel for it. Certain things are still the same. We're looking at all these criteria and here are your chances. If it's mission impossible, then you kind of tell them that, do you?
Ms. Welbourne: In order to have their expression of interest accepted, they would need to meet certain minimum entry criteria related to skill level and language ability. Then they would be admitted into what we have been terming an EOI pool. At that point they would be ranked and sorted, using a kind of points grid based on evidence that shows which individuals would have the highest chances of success in terms of economic —
Senator D. Smith: I always think it's good to be honest with people. If it's a hopeless application, be up front and tell them rather than have them wait eight years to get an answer.
Prior to this approach being taken, what percentage of all the applications for permanent residence to Canada would meet the threshold on the point system? Would we be talking a third? What percentage?
Ms. Welbourne: Are you asking what percentage of applicants in the past would meet the minimum entry criteria that we intend to establish for EOI?
Senator D. Smith: Yes.
Ms. Welbourne: We haven't come to ground yet on the minimum entry criteria. That's one of the aspects still to be determined.
Senator D. Smith: These will be the tough decisions you'll have to make as to who you tell it isn't going to work.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Welcome to you all. My name is Josée Verner and I am a senator from Quebec. I would like to ask you about the federal-provincial aspect of this bill. I imagine, and you referred to this in your opening remarks, that there are ongoing consultations with the provinces and the territories. I expect everyone is pleased with this measure, especially the provinces that have such a great need for investor immigrants.
As you know, Quebec manages its own affairs in the area of immigration under an agreement signed in 1991. I assume they do not fall under this bill. Nonetheless, have there been any informal discussions with Quebec, at least to let them know what is happening with the other provinces? Can you tell us anything about this?
Ms. Welbourne: Thank you for your question. With your permission I will respond in English.
Senator Verner: Of course.
[English]
You're quite right that Quebec has selection authorities under the Canada-Quebec accord. They have full authorities to select immigrants destined for Quebec and nothing about this changes that. They have been involved in and are aware of our intention to move forward with an expression of interest system, so they're fully informed.
We have been in discussions with other provinces and territories related to their provincial nominee programs and whether or not they would be interested in using the EOI system to access some or all of those provincial nominees. Yes, that would not apply to Quebec, which has its own set of selection authorities, but we do understand that Quebec is exploring also the possibility of establishing its own expression of interest approach within its area.
[Translation]
Senator Verner: Thank you. You just answered my second question, which would have been whether or not, as a result, they were thinking about a similar system for themselves. Thank you very much.
Senator Dawson: Senator Verner just about took my questions out of my mouth. In fact, the Couture-Cullen agreement and the tradition that followed gave Quebec responsibility to do its own selections. I love your system, I think it is a very good idea. I hope that when this system is established, and you hope this will be done by January 2015, you will meet your objectives.
That said, did real consultations take place or was information simply provided to the Government of Quebec? Three or four months after the system has been established, is the Government of Quebec going to raise a hue and cry and say that the horrible federal government once again overstepped its authority?
[English]
Ms. Welbourne: Initially, when we embarked on this, we shared our intention to move ahead with an EOI system with all provinces and territories. We are working with the other provinces and territories on certain design elements as they will likely be eventual users, one way or another, of the EOI system. We haven't completed the same kind of work with Quebec because it has been clear that they are not interested in participating in the EOI system as, again, they have full authority for selection. They are kept fully aware of where we are and, as I say, they have indicated that they will likely be exploring the possibility of creating their own EOI system to apply to immigrants destined to the province of Quebec.
Senator Dawson: Since we are on budget implementation legislation that's dealing with immigration; dealing with transport, as we did tonight at the Transport Committee; and dealing with passports, it can become a little confusing. Normally, we could have two tables.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis asked a question about is this done to simplify what was asked when we previously studied this question of transferring the passport responsibility. Is this a second stage or a clarification? What's the budgetary representation on this issue? What does this have to do with the budget? Are there financial implications?
Ms. Imrie: The passport change, the machinery change, was made effective July 2. I would like to make that clarification so it's clear for everyone. There might have been confusion about the date of implementation for the expression of interest model versus the date of the transfer of passport. That transfer became effective on July 2 of this year and the Canadian passport order was updated to make that effective July 2.
There is a great interest in making sure that we clarify the legislative responsibilities and accountabilities at the first possible opportunity. There is an important issue of basic accountability and also issues related to the Criminal Code. They are amendments of a technical nature so the feeling was that this was the appropriate mechanism for them.
Senator Dawson: I come back to the global question of budget implementation. We're debating a budget implementation bill. Are there any costs related to either question dealing with passports; or question B, dealing with immigration? Are there budget considerations we should be informed about?
Ms. Imrie: Responsibility for the passport revolving fund has been moved from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration Canada, so, in that sense, there is a budgetary impact.
Senator Dawson: That was done in the previous legislation.
Ms. Imrie: It was made effective on July 2, but it is actually being updated. It's another legislative change. That change is actually in the supplementary estimates legislation.
Senator Dawson: So when our chair has to report to the Finance Committee, she will be able to say that there are no financial implications in these non-budgetary modifications?
Ms. Imrie: I would say that government programs are changing and evolving all the time, so, as we transfer the program from one department to the other, we're also in the process of planning the future of the passport program and taking advantage of opportunities to modernize the IT systems. One of the drivers of the change was the fact that the passport program itself was on an outdated IT system. It will be moved to CIC's global case management system. This is the sort of investment that would have to happen in terms of updating IT systems as a matter of course, but the machinery change gives us the opportunity to use CIC's global case management system for that purpose. There will be some investments required to do that work, so I don't think I can say that there are no financial implications.
The Chair: Was the move to save money? Was it efficiency? What was the reason for the change of the passport?
Ms. Imrie: The primary driver was program alignment. CIC is responsible for citizenship. Passport is the classic proof of citizenship, the document that demonstrates someone's citizenship. As I mentioned, there were opportunities to use CIC's case management system to upgrade the IT systems. There will also be opportunities to enhance program integrity in terms of some of the linkages. CIC already has automated linkages, in our global case management system, with our security partners. There will also be opportunities to find efficiencies, and that does not only relate to the move to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. The in-Canada service delivery network is now the responsibility of the Minister of Employment and Social Development, and that will allow us to leverage the existing Service Canada network to improve services to Canadians and to, in the long run, create efficiencies.
The Chair: If you can't do it now, perhaps you could file it with us. There was a cost of moving it from one department to another, I presume. Have you been able to estimate what that is? There will be a cost for upgrading. Every time you have a new system, we're told it's a certain cost, and then it becomes a different cost. What are your estimates for this upgrade, and what do you estimate will be the cost efficiency? So that's the financial side.
We understand the program coordination, better service, et cetera. You made that very clear in your opening statement. It's the cost implications. If you can't do it now, could you file that with us?
Ms. Imrie: Yes, absolutely. We are going through the planning process, so we would have an opportunity to bring that at a future date.
The Chair: Would that be sooner or later?
Ms. Imrie: I think we will advise.
The Chair: You can advise the clerk when you might be in a position to give us that.
Senator Demers: Thank you very much for your answers. Two quick questions: Why did the government deem it necessary to transfer the passport program to Citizenship and Immigration Canada?
Ms. Imrie: The move really had to do with program alignment, taking advantage of some of the synergies between the citizenship program and passports. Passports being a quintessential proof of citizenship, there was an opportunity there for program alignment. Also, it was a great opportunity to take advantage of CIC's IT systems to update the outdated passport IT systems.
Senator Demers: Thank you. Just a different question: You have gone to 10 years. You talked about security a few minutes ago. Is this not a concern with security to have control over every five years? You still have the five years, right? When you go with 10 years — I'm sure you thought about it, but I do not know the answer — is there a certain amount of concern about security in giving someone a 10-year passport? Mr. Lamarche?
Mr. Lamarche: Would you like me to answer your question in English or French?
Senator Demers: It's up to you.
[Translation]
Mr. Lamarche: Previously, the Canadian passport was valid for five years. People had a choice between a 24-page or a 48-page passport. Consultations on the User Fees Act showed us that Canadians prefer a 10-year passport. Most countries issue 10-year passports. Canada was one of the few still issuing 5-year passports. We therefore decided to align ourselves with international practices and provide Canadians with a choice of a 10 or 5-year passport.
Adding the electronic chip to the passport also made the passport much safer. We decided to use the opportunity to issue a 10-year passport, given how secure this document was.
[English]
The Chair: Senator Demers, you weren't part of the committee at that time. One of the reasons given for a five-year passport was that some people didn't want their pictures 10 years later. It would be out of date. There was some question around that, but also the option was for people to have it five years or 10 years.
Has that study that you did on that issue changed in the six months or so since we heard the original testimony? Do you still hold that most people want the 10, but there is still the option for five? That's still the inclination of citizens?
Mr. Lamarche: Yes. Right now, close to 80 per cent of passports issued are issued for 10 years. Bear in mind that children are not allowed 10 years. It's a five year ePassport for children.
The Chair: That's the maturation.
Mr. Lamarche: Yes, they change a lot.
Senator Ataullahjan: What I want to know is what kind of information will be required of foreign nationals in the Expression of Interest submission, and will gender, age, disability or visible minority be taken into account?
Ms. Welbourne: On the question of EOI and what information will be provided as part of the online application, it would be fairly standard information related to name, date of birth, country of citizenship, that kind of data. Only information that would be relevant to our ability to rank and sort them and to their eventual application for permanent residence.
Senator Ataullahjan: You mentioned that Australia implemented a similar system, I think in 2012. Do we know how successful the system was and what kind of challenges they faced?
Ms. Welbourne: We do know from our conversations with both Australia and New Zealand that they are, overall, pleased with their systems. New Zealand has had its system in place for 12 or 13 years now. Australia's was implemented in July 2012, so it's a newer system. They did not point out any particular challenges or issues to us but, rather, helpful tips in terms of trying to find, for instance, the right numbers in what we call the pipeline heading into an EOI system and to ensure that you maintain enough of an inventory to allow for landings to continue as you make the transition to a new system. That's the nature of the conversation, but overall I would say both countries are very comfortable with their move to an EOI approach.
Senator Oh: Senator Ataullahjan asked half my question. Do you have any idea what the turnaround time is for the applications for Australia and New Zealand? Do we have to pay New Zealand or Australia for the system we are sharing with them?
Ms. Welbourne: It may be helpful to explain a bit about the processing times for Australia and New Zealand. Once they receive an application for permanent residence, they're able to process those applications in a period of one to three months. But just to make sure it's clear, for an individual who is filling an Expression of Interest, an online form, that's an automated process. Whether or not they've been accepted into the EOI system should be essentially instantaneous. Then, valid EOIs will be kept alive for a period of time to be determined, so people will be accepted into the pool and they will have valid EOIs. In New Zealand, it's for six months; in Australia, it's two years; Canada will be probably somewhere in the middle of that. During that time, the individual may or may not be invited to apply. Once the individual is invited to apply, they will have a certain period of time in which to provide their application for permanent residence, and then processing starts once that individual has submitted an application for permanent residence. In Canada, we are aiming to achieve a six-month processing time, again, once we've received an individual's application for permanent residence in the initial stages.
Senator Oh: Do we have to pay for the use of the system?
Ms. Welbourne: Will individuals have to pay for it?
Senator Oh: Yes. Will we have to pay Australia and New Zealand for sharing the system?
Ms. Welbourne: No. We've consulted with them sort of informally at the officials' level, but we are building on our existing IT system. We're not purchasing a system from either Australia or New Zealand. Rather, we're using their experiences to modify our current IT and our global case management system to accommodate the expression of interest system.
The Chair: Just to be clear, you say it's either for New Zealand or for Australia that it was going to be about a turnaround time of three months and ours would be six months. Why?
Ms. Welbourne: Because, given the volume of applications that we expect to receive and our processing capacity, that's what our goal is with an initial launch, with the goal always to improving as much as possible our processing times after that.
The Chair: Are you satisfied that you've got a handle on the fact that people will go into this data bank and that they will fall off it; there's a time to that? So when they can reapply, is there an additional cost for reapplication or is it cost- free at that point?
Ms. Welbourne: There's no fee associated with expressing interest in coming to Canada. Filling in the online application is free. The costs come at the application for permanent residence stage, where there is a fee associated with any application for permanent residence, as well as there may be other fees. For instance, under the Federal Skilled Worker Program, there's currently a requirement for an educational credential assessment. As an example, applicants will have other fees that they will have to pay, but not specifically related to the EOI part of the process.
The Chair: We know there are a lot of agents, representatives, whatever, who work in this field.
Senator D. Smith: Even lawyers.
The Chair: Even lawyers, I'm told by Senator Smith. Will this preclude them in the application? You won't know if there's someone standing by someone at their computer, but will there be any identification of that kind of agent or assistant, or will you not have any idea what's happening at that end?
Ms. Welbourne: It's the same kind of approach, what we've got within IRPA generally will apply to EOI. There's nothing to preclude an individual working with an agent, but we will ask that, in the cases where an agent is involved, they are identified.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I would like to refer to Section 10.3 in Division 16 of Bill C-4 and the subsequent paragraphs. It looks like applications must be submitted electronically using a system designated by the minister, and that under exceptional circumstances, those applications can be submitted by means of another method.
Can you tell me if this electronic system has been designed and if it is functional? Earlier you referred to the Australian system that you will not be purchasing but I would like to have information about the system that will be used in Canada.
[English]
Ms. Welbourne: The EOI system, which is the automated system that we're talking about here, does not exist currently. We are building it in order to work towards a January 2015 launch. That part of the proposed legislation establishes that the EOI will be an automated system. There are a couple of elements. It will be the system itself, the automated system, which will determine whether an individual who is an EOI candidate gets accepted to the pool on the basis of that online information. We are required, because of Charter obligations, to ensure that individuals who, for whatever reason, cannot fill in an online form can provide the relevant information through another means. This section of the act gets at the fact that even if we receive that information, say, in paper form, it will be entered into the EOI system and the automated processes will apply.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: I hope you will not experience the same kinds of problems that Mr. Obama has had with his health system.
My next question is for Mr. Carruthers. How will you deal with temporary foreign workers?
Campion Carruthers, Director, Temporary Foreign Workers Program, Employment and Social Development Canada: Thank you for your question. I will answer in English. Perhaps I need to better understand the question.
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: You are an expert. You deal with temporary foreign workers. Under the new system, how will you resolve the cases of foreign workers who are residing temporarily in Canada?
[English]
Mr. Carruthers: This proposal would have no impact whatsoever on the processing of temporary foreign worker applications on our side, so labour market opinions on our side. I would expect the same for work permits on the side of CIC, but I'll let them speak for themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: How will foreign workers be able to apply to work for a few months in Canada?
[English]
Ms. Welbourne: The EOI system will apply only to permanent residents, so individuals intending to immigrate to Canada permanently in certain economic streams. The EOI system will not apply to those individuals coming to Canada as temporary foreign workers.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: Will the temporary foreign workers' program remain under Foreign Affairs or will it also be transferred to Citizenship and Immigration Canada given that you are saying that only certain immigrants can come to Canada?
[English]
Ms. Welbourne: The Temporary Foreign Worker Program is essentially a shared program between CIC and Employment and Social Development Canada. There are two main aspects to the program. One is on the workers' side. CIC issues work permits for temporary foreign workers; and ESDC has responsibility grosso modo for the labour market opinion side of the question. At a very high level, those are the two departments involved and their responsibilities. But, as I say, the EOI has no direct application to the Temporary Foreign Worker Program.
Senator D. Smith: Let me say at the outset that I'm open-minded on the rationale that you're trying to make to us. I want to make sure I'm understanding it correctly, and you might respond to this.
My impression is that it's a system that it sort of screens out people who don't have a hope, fairly early on, and that sort of avoids big backlogs, which can mean that the overall system would work faster.
I have a couple of questions. One is: What if somebody is literally 50-50? You don't need to answer this now, because I'm going to ask you two questions.
The other question I have — because I actually agree with wanting to have a system that isn't in a huge backlog because people who don't have a chance are still in there and just clog the system — what about people in the family reunification category? Say there's somebody in a family where everybody else in the family is in Canada, but they're not? I don't know how many points they get for that. I used to know this kind of stuff. What about a situation like that? Are they screened out early or is there some consideration given to somebody who, say, is the only member of the family who isn't in Canada? Maybe you can shed a little light on those kinds of situations.
Ms. Welbourne: I'll try to explain how we see the EOI working in terms of minimum entry criteria, and then who may eventually get invited to apply.
To begin, to be accepted into what we've been terming the EOI pool, so to be considered, individuals will have to meet certain minimum entry criteria, as probably associated with skill level of work experience and language requirements. In addition, they have to be able to qualify for one of the programs that will be sourced through EOI. As I say, we're talking about the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class or the Federal Skilled Trades Program, and possibly certain or all provincial nominee programs to be determined.
So it's not that we'll be saying to them, ``You've got a 50-50 chance or 75 per cent chance''; it's a first stage. They will have made the first stage and then it will be a combination of factors that may lead to them being invited to apply. That combination of factors relates to what we call human capital factors, so things like their age, their work experience, their official language abilities, and others, and/or whether an employer has offered them a job, and/or whether a province or territory has nominated them or wishes to nominate them.
Those are the things that will determine, solo or in combination, how an individual gets to leave the pool, through being invited to apply for permanent residence. That's what we're envisaging. All of those factors that I've described are indicators of how successful an immigrant is likely to be once they land in Canada, in terms of economic outcomes. That's the rationale for choosing.
All of the individuals in the pool are likely to qualify on a certain level for one of the programs. Again, it's a way, of all of the individuals who may qualify, to be eligible for one of the programs, how do we choose the top candidates amongst a bigger pool of individuals? Again, it's sort of selecting the best and brightest, meaning those who have the best chances of success once they do arrive, amongst a larger pool of individuals who may have met the minimum criteria and are interested in coming to Canada. But we need to choose, because there are far larger numbers of individuals who are interested in Canada than the space that we have in terms of our annual levels plan and our ability to bring them to Canada.
Senator D. Smith: Does the family reunification thing not enter in at all? What if somebody is very close, missed by a point or two, but every other member of the family is in Canada? Is that factored in?
Ms. Welbourne: Again, just to break it down, the EOI will apply to only certain economic streams. It doesn't apply to the non-economic, which has to do with the family reunification. Individuals, so principal applicants and their accompanying family members, will be dealt with through EOI, but the ranking and sorting really applies only to the principal applicant. If there are accompanying family members, they come along with the principal applicant who is being dealt with as an economic immigrant through EOI.
Senator D. Smith: I think so. If there was a family of 10 kids here and they wanted to bring their mother over, but she didn't meet —
Ms. Welbourne: In that case, it wouldn't. If they're here, they've arrived, and they're looking at family reunification, that individual who is coming is not coming through an economic immigration program and therefore will not be affected by EOI.
The Chair: They would apply on existing programs; is that it?
Ms. Welbourne: Right. There are two ways of family members joining permanent residents in Canada. They either come at the time that the principal applicant is coming, and if they're coming in an economic stream that's affected by EOI, they will be part of that. If it's a case where there's a permanent resident in Canada who is sponsoring an individual to come through the family reunification process, then the EOI will not apply because it only applies to economic immigration streams, and those individuals who are outside Canada wishing to rejoin family will not be immigrating to Canada under an economic stream.
Senator D. Smith: But they might under the other stream?
Ms. Welbourne: If they're coming at the same time as the applicant, they will not be affected by the points. The points score and the ranking and sorting only applies to the principal applicant. It does not apply to accompanying family members, whether a spouse or children.
The Chair: It doesn't preclude family members from applying under existing programs?
Ms. Welbourne: Right.
The Chair: You're saying it's not going to be under this program. We want to know whether the existing rules will still apply to any family member. They will.
Senator D. Smith: This doesn't prejudice the other programs. That's my point.
Ms. Welbourne: Correct. No, it does not.
Senator Oh: My question is: We will be hearing from the stakeholders tomorrow. What do you think is their concern with the EOI system?
Ms. Welbourne: I'll let the stakeholders express themselves when they come tomorrow. I guess the only point I would make is that we have been working not only with provinces and territories, but we have undertaken a series of consultations with employer groups and other interested stakeholders over the last about year and a half since we started actively pursuing the idea of EOI. I would think it's fair to say that generally they are supportive of the overall approach and the objectives of EOI, which is to really align our application intake with our processing capacity to allow for faster processing and the elimination of backlogs, as well as increasing the labour market responsiveness of the overall economic immigration program.
Senator Oh: One more question. Have you consulted Canadian embassies and consulates overseas, such as China, India, Philippines, which have a lot of applicants in the economic class? Is there any feedback?
James McNamee, Director, Immigration Strategies & Analysis, Citizenship and Immigration Canada: I'll attempt to answer that one. Yes, as part of our process of developing the expression of interest model, we have been in close contact with our missions overseas and trying to understand from their perspective what are the challenges, as you say, with the various streams that they're managing.
More recently, we've had officials in Canada who are here on a visit, and we've consulted them at that stage as well. There's a lot of support in terms of the ability that this system will create to facilitate their work over time, as we will be aligning the intake of applications with the capacity to process. That, for them, is very good news.
Senator Tannas: I just wanted to go a little bit further on what Senator Ataullahjan and Senator Oh talked about. You had mentioned that Australia and New Zealand had said there was an improvement in outcomes. I'm wondering if you can tell me what that improvement was. It went to something, but it was from what? So they went from what to — I think you said three months.
I'm wondering also what benchmarks specifically we will be using, and will we be publishing them? How are we going to measure that this is a nice thing, but we'll be able to tell the next country we went from X to Y and we're monitoring? Can you cover that a little bit for me?
Ms. Welbourne: I think there are probably a couple of different elements within that question. One aspect is processing time of applications and another is outcomes of individuals.
Outcomes take longer to track. It's something we have to look back and watch how outcomes progress over time. That's not something that we got into with the Australians and the folks from New Zealand in terms of the outcomes of their immigrants. What we did talk about more was to do with how EOI improved the processing and, again, aligning your application intake.
Senator Tannas: Sorry. I might have ventured into your lexicon. ``Outcomes'' meaning a decision, not what happened to them after they were blessed.
Ms. Welbourne: Okay. Sorry. One of the things that happened was a lower refusal rate. What they saw is because of the individuals going through the EOI process, that when they did get applications for permanent residence from individuals who had been invited to apply, they were good-quality applications and the approval rate went up.
Senator Tannas: Will we be tracking and monitoring this? Will we actually track and monitor this and be able to tell the next country this is how it improved us by X per cent and we're here?
Ms. Welbourne: Yes. That is something we do now, is track processing times and approval rates across the various streams, by source country, by program stream, and, certainly, after EOI is implemented, we will continue to do that and monitor to see how we're doing.
Senator Tannas: Right now, based on everything that you've got here, what is the percentage or what is the measurement that you are anticipating we will see this improve by? I know you mentioned it. I think you said the goal is to get to six months.
Ms. Welbourne: Six months processing.
Senator Tannas: Where are we now?
Ms. Welbourne: Depending on category, but for instance, for the federal skilled worker program, processing times are currently just under a year. So we're looking to move towards having —
Senator Tannas: Fifty per cent?
Ms. Welbourne: Yes.
Senator Tannas: Terrific. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Fortin-Duplessis: In section 10.4, on page 227 of the bill, it says that:
The minister may disclose personal information provided to him or her by the foreign national under section 10.110.1....
It says that he can disclose that information to an entity. What does the entity refer to? I would also like to know if basic privacy rules will be applied.
[English]
Ms. Welbourne: Those are the authorities that will allow us to share applicant information, as appropriate. Really, at this point, the entities that we're talking about here are provinces and territories. What we're envisaging under the EOI model that we're proposing is allowing provinces and territories to access applicant information through a specific portal. So it would allow the provinces and territories, in order to be able to identify EOI candidates that they may be interested in nominating, to access information.
We already share information quite regularly with provinces and territories, and have a number of information- sharing arrangements, such as MOUs. As we move towards implementation, we'll be ensuring that we have the necessary authorities in place to continue to share this kind of information, specific to EOI, with provinces and territories, or we'll update and create the new authorities to allow us to share this information. Of course, an important part of moving towards implementation of a project of this nature is the privacy impact assessment that we will undertake in consultation with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner, to make sure that we have all of the necessary authorities in place and that any risks are mitigated.
The Chair: I'd like to thank everyone on the panel. As you can see from the questions, there is a lot of interest in how this program will fare, how it fits into the other systems. No doubt we will hear from you, or, at least, you'll hear from us, in the near future. Thank you for being available today.
Senators, we are adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning.
(The committee adjourned.)