Skip to content
SOCI - Standing Committee

Social Affairs, Science and Technology

 

THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON SOCIAL AFFAIRS, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

EVIDENCE


OTTAWA, Thursday, May 19, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met with videoconference this day at 3 p.m. [ET] to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 23, 24, 26, 27, 29 and 32 of Part 5 of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022, and other measures.

Senator Ratna Omidvar (Chair) in the chair.

[English]

The Chair: Honourable senators, I am Ratna Omidvar, a senator from Ontario and chair of this committee.

Today our committee is beginning its examination of the subject matter of certain provisions of Bill C-19, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on April 7, 2022 and other measures.

Today, we are examining Division 23, which amends the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to, among other things, allow the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to create new categories of Express Entry with specific economic goals, require additional information in the annual report to Parliament and exempt certain fees from the Service Fees Act.

For our first panel, we welcome, from the Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association, Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst. Unfortunately, Chantal Desloges, Immigration Lawyer from the Desloges Law Group, was scheduled but can no longer attend today’s meeting.

Mr. Kurland, you will have our undivided attention for an hour. I now ask you to provide your opening remarks. You have five minutes. Maybe we’ll give you a little room to stretch, because you are the only witness, before we move on to questions from senators.

Richard Kurland, Lawyer and Policy Analyst, Canadian Immigration Lawyers Association: Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me the privilege of appearing today.

We’re here to discuss two complex areas. One relates to ministerial instructions; the second, the Service Fees Act. To simplify, ministerial instructions are like Russian dolls, and the Service Fees Act is more akin to exempting Canada’s immigration authorities from compliance monitoring and establishing processing performance standards.

First, ministerial instructions are excellent policy tools being provided to Canada’s immigration department to fine-tune the Express Entry system and perhaps other groups within the immigration selection process. These are required. The reference to Russian dolls is due to their nature. They aren’t toys. They’re products where one fits into the next in ever-diminishing size. The idea here is you can establish a group, a subgroup and a sub-subgroup. It’s invaluable. The downside of this would be a loss, to some extent, of the normal parliamentary review process for changes to Canada’s immigration selection system. On balance, it’s a fair trade.

Sometimes, in order to maximize the benefits of retaining the best human capital on Canadian soil, we need to, almost with a microscope, identify candidates who will serve Canada’s long-term interests the best. There are no issues here. The one caveat pointed out by my colleague who, unfortunately, due to illness this morning, could not appear before the committee, Chantal Desloges, would be to recommend that these provisions not interfere with the ministerial compassionate and humanitarian discretion under Section 25, the catchphrase being “Keep 25 alive.” The overall idea is ministerial instructions are a great move forward that will benefit the immigration department in terms of operations and Canada’s long-term interests. That is something to be supported.

However, when it comes to the Service Fees Act, it’s a different story. I’ll beg your indulgence because this may take two to three minutes. The Service Fees Act was created for one purpose: to have Parliament exercise control over our government departments. Therefore, a government department that offers a service for a fee, such as an application for a visa, is required by law to declare performance standards. In other words, they must answer the question: How long is it going to take? As well, the act requires that government department report, every fiscal year, their revenues and expenses. How much does it cost, and how much do they get in revenue for every immigration application for a visa, as well as other services in the context of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or IRCC? The short story here is that instead of increasing parliamentary oversight regarding performance standards and financial reporting, the proposed amendment decreases parliamentary oversight over the immigration department. That’s something that can’t be supported. That’s the short entree.

I can provide, during the time that we have for questions, illustrations of how the ministerial instruction matrix can be upgraded and treat some of Canada’s most pressing immigration problems, and I can provide an illustration based on internal documents obtained from the immigration department under the Access to Information Act regarding compliance with the Financial Administration Act.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland, for your remarks. We will now proceed to questions from senators.

Senator Bovey: Thank you, sir, for your remarks. Obviously, you’ve taken us down a positive path and a more problematic path.

On Express Entry, we’ve all heard a lot over the last few years about the Provincial Nominee Programs. My question is this: What impact would these amendments have on provinces and territories using Express Entry for provincial nominee programs, which would be important in Manitoba?

Mr. Kurland: Yes, Manitoba being the first province in Canada to make use of the provincial nominee in the system back in the 1970s.

In the context that it’s a tool in a tool box, I liken it to a rather sharp double blade. It can work for you; it can work against you. When it comes to the Provincial Nominee Program, it is possible, using these new tools, to micromanage the provincial nominee, or PNP, flow. It would be possible for the immigration authorities at the federal level to review the pool of PNP selections undertaken provincially and prioritize federal processing based on a subgroup. That can work for the applicant; it can work against the applicant.

At this stage, I think it’s more important to give that tool to Ottawa because this may facilitate migration in PNP, if it’s through that Express Entry operational matrix to bring in — at a faster rate and in higher volumes — individuals desired by the province based on provincial interest. This is something we may want to support.

Senator Bovey: On the service fees, as I read it, the Service Fees Act is deemed to have come into force in June of 2017 with the original act. Why do you think these proposed exemptions are retroactive?

Mr. Kurland: That is a question I was going to raise myself. I see no business case for it. Applications that have been put in back in 2017 for that kind of application have come and gone. I suspect it’s more on the financial side, the ability, by statute, to not report how much visa applications cost and how much revenue was generated by those visa applications.

The litigious context is that the immigration department remains actively in Federal Court regarding an admitted quarter-billion-dollar profit on temporary resident visas. This is their admission, on record. It’s very important for the immigration department to do its best to cover its potential liability by bringing the timeline all the way back to 2017.

Senator Bovey: It seems a long time.

Madam Chair, I’d like to cede whatever seconds I have left to others to dig deeper.

The Chair: Absolutely. We have enough time to dig deeper.

Senator Poirier: Thank you, Mr. Kurland, for being with us this afternoon.

By reading section 4.2 of Budget 2022 and looking at Division 23, it is clear the government is orienting our immigration system for economic purposes. In your opinion, is the government prioritizing labour market needs to the detriment of social and democratic needs such as for francophone communities outside Quebec?

Mr. Kurland: On the good side, over these many years I have accessed internal immigration department documents concerning La Francophonie, and I have focused particularly on francophone migration outside the province of Quebec. The trend over the last two to three years has been a palpable, positive intent to facilitate francophone migration. Provinces have been assigned specific targets to meet, and they are now on track to meet at least 4.4% of the flow. This is not for show. This is internal, consistent and over time. So Canada truly — at least Ottawa truly — is doing its very best in terms of intent and delivery on ensuring the continued and increasing flow of francophones to provinces other than Quebec.

Senator Poirier: Do you feel it has an impact in our capacity to welcome more refugees?

Mr. Kurland: The refugee flow has actually plummeted due to COVID, a decline of over 60% per year. That should uptake in 2023.

There is an interesting connection between source countries’ language ability and refugee status, particularly if the refugee status is not granted. You’re in a compassionate humanitarian or in an alternative immigration stream.

To connect the dots: If the refugee-source country is predominantly francophone and that individual, once here in Canada, fails the refugee test, they may find that they have a boots-on-the-ground advantage to being francophone. Provinces have to meet their quota. If you’re outside New Brunswick or Manitoba or Ontario, the failed refugee is well advised to relocate to that other provincial group. On the whole, the refugee card is but an indicator of eligibility, if the refugee case fails, for our usual preference of francophone migration destined to provinces outside of Quebec.

Senator Poirier: Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Mr. Kurland, it’s great to see you again. May I say I find you have an amazing knack for making these perhaps somewhat dry subjects interesting? I know we’re all grateful for that.

I’d like to ask you about Division 23 and the amendments to establish a group, a subgroup and a sub-subgroup — your Russian doll analogy, which certainly got our attention. Could you kindly give us an example of how these groups would work? Could you give us a concrete example that would allow us to better understand this proposed amendment?

Mr. Kurland: This is a potential cure for other groups, such as a parent/grandparent in the family class. That’s probably the easiest illustration, equally applicable to Express Entry application pools.

Let’s say, for the right reasons, we do not empty the present inventory of parent/grandparent expressions of interest. These are over 100,000 people who have applied a year or two ago for the prospect of being invited to apply to sponsor their parents. They’ve submitted expressions of interest only. Then, a lottery generates the winners’ list. If you’re not on the list, in the past the inventory was emptied and you would have to try your luck all over again. Maybe a better way to build a mousetrap is to retain the entire inventory of parent/grandparent expressions of interest and, every year, scoop out the numbers you need to meet the annual target for parents/grandparents.

Why is this different? It’s not different for Ottawa because the same number of human beings are targeted for permanent residence. However, it’s a world of difference for the people in that inventory because it should not be a question of if you can sponsor; it should be a question of when. When the inventory is over, you open the floodgates and bring in all the new applicants and close the floodgates until everyone is processed. That’s fair. It costs Canada nothing. It benefits families because they know at some point they will be processed.

To illustrate this point, within that pool of parent/grandparent, you can assign points, just like we assign in Express Entry, or create groups or subgroups. You create, for example, more points or a subgroup of everyone who has tried and failed that lottery for more than five years; or everyone who would, if they were allowed to immigrate to Canada, be taking care of a young child in a Canadian family, freeing up a parent to enter the labour force and pay tax. There are extra points for that. Lastly, you would have points or a subgroup of the folks already here more than one year on a super visa. These are the subtleties that, if implemented, would create a scale of high-scoring, lower-scoring potential sponsors, and “first come, first served” would depend upon your point tally. The point tally depends upon the needs and the benefits to Canada.

That’s why this ministerial instruction, when it comes to creating groups, subgroups and whatnot, is invaluable, particularly when faced with a ballooned inventory of applications. That’s the illustration of the power of these ministerial instructions.

Senator Patterson: Thank you very much for that very clear example. It was very helpful to me.

You said that the downside is that this ministerial direction, which you applaud, bypasses parliamentary scrutiny. Is there a way that we could retain these progressive changes and still retain parliamentary scrutiny? Would that be a difficult addition to these provisions?

Mr. Kurland: Honourable senator, knowing the scarcity of time of parliamentarians and the minute detail of these ministerial instructions, and there will be a large number, in anticipation of the honourable senator’s question, I thought hard about it for a couple of weeks. There is a potential solution: Establish a watchdog over the immigration department. We have that for other departments. The watchdog can be provided with access to all data within the immigration department, including the data that underpins ministerial instructions. The mandate ought to include this overview and reporting function. It’s not for parliamentarians to engage in the minutia of examining ministerial instruction by ministerial instruction, but we have to safeguard oversight in some manner. Therefore, the watchdog ought to be able to report directly to Parliament, on a regular basis, the determinations, recommendations and findings of the work of this watchdog. That would address the democratic concern to ensure some level of control over immigration department decisions.

Senator Patterson: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Kurland, I will quickly dig into some of the questions raised by Senator Patterson. I agree with my colleague that, forever, we will always think of Express Entry as “Russian dolls on a shelf,” and we know there are many such Russian dolls.

Am I clear in understanding from you that the minister may establish categories that go outside of the box of what is normally an Express Entry, which is individuals destined for the labour market? The minister could, as you’re suggesting, establish a category for parents and grandparents, spousal reunification or even truck drivers, which there already is — but let’s say lower-skilled workers to our country.

Mr. Kurland: Absolutely, honourable senator. I was actually there on the ground at the embryonic stage of a ministerial instruction. I’ve advised many ministers on the utility of the device over time.

My word of caution — and it doesn’t apply here; this is theoretical — but the word of caution relates to potential political corruption. The illustration I provided over a considerable period of time is a marginal swing constituency where there’s political interest in keeping either certain donors or constituents happy. There is nothing to prevent a minister’s official from wandering down to a building in downtown Ottawa to the tech centre, tapping an operator on the shoulder and saying, “Okay, we need these applicants destined to this particular factory in this particular city to be approved yesterday. We’ll deal with the ministerial instruction wording, but can you do it? Show me the programming.” And they can concoct a ministerial instruction that appears vague and general in the round sense, but when you drill down, it turns out that it’s only cabinet-makers in this city, in this province, in this particular range of addresses who will qualify. No one’s going to know. That’s political candy, and we have to guard against that so we don’t turn the clock back to the days of Duplessis in Quebec and their ilk. That’s what to watch out for.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kurland.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: Thank you for that information, Mr. Kurland. I’m going to ask you a question about the various subgroups, to follow up on the question from Senator Patterson.

In the subgroups, I see that there is a group dealing with rehabilitation, criminality and serious criminality. Are these people who have committed crimes in Canada and have been removed, but want to come back to the country? Or are they rather people who are in their own country and have committed crimes, but one day want to come to Canada? Is that the group in question?

Mr. Kurland: In terms of ministerial instructions, it has no impact, particularly with the Service Fees Act, since the performance criteria will be excluded for this category of people. That means there will be no time limit for processing an application. I find that unacceptable, but it is the department’s desire to exempt itself from this scheme.

Regarding the operational aspect, you asked whether it was going to change the identity of the people who could immigrate to or visit Canada. No, not at all. There will be no change at all.

Senator Mégie: I have a concern in that regard. If they have committed crimes and they are repatriated again, I wonder what the intent is.

If that approach is chosen, at what point will it start to be used?

Mr. Kurland: That’s an excellent question, senator. I don’t have an answer. It depends on the Immigration Department; it’s a question of will. I imagine that they could put the amendments into effect in November or December of this year, at the earliest.

What’s important is that it all be put into place before 2023. Because economic growth is good and Canada will enjoy a big advantage in the sale of goods and services worldwide, we should be prepared to admit a large number of immigrants and temporary foreign workers in order to achieve our economic objectives.

Senator Mégie: Thank you, Mr. Kurland.

[English]

Senator Moodie: Thank you for being with us today. I really appreciate the insights you’re giving us, Mr. Kurland.

I’m wondering if you could expand a little bit on the whole idea of the Express Entry system and that particular loss of parliamentary oversight you refer to. I’m hearing some positive, perhaps, side effects that we would want to see happen from freeing up the system, but I’m also hearing some really concerning things. Without the watchdog, would you support this initiative?

Mr. Kurland: You got me on that one. The group I am here representing today has provided a mandate to support. That’s diplomatic. For myself, no watchdog, no change.

Senator Moodie: That’s good. Thanks for your really frank and open response.

When you think about the impacts of these proposed amendments, do you think that it affects clients from all countries equally? Can you comment specifically on perhaps the changes that might affect applicants from African and Caribbean countries? Is it likely to be a negative or positive impact?

Mr. Kurland: I studied that question for literally years, every change, who wins, who loses, who gets here faster. On that one, the good thing is that this impacts people already here in Canada. Our system is redesigned to maximize human capital retention. Unless you have that Canadian education, Canadian work experience and are under age 35, if you’re in or out of Canada, it’s not going to make a difference.

The good thing reflecting on the changes introduced in the 1970s by Prime Minister Trudeau, the elder, is that we have engaged as a nation to select skills, not skin. It no longer matters where you come from. What matters is what you bring to the table in terms of your skills and potential contribution to Canada’s economy during your lifetime.

Where this may fall short relates to some operational issues. It will take longer, again, no performance standard. It will take longer if you’re from a nation where Canada has reasonable doubts, given the history of documents coming from that particular region, to require additional time to drill down on authenticity and veracity of what’s being submitted. Better if you take a little longer and get it right than to keep our door open to people who enter with false documentation. Yes, there is still variation.

The question is, what’s acceptable? That comes down to two things; data and access. IRCC knows full well it can generate reports on processing times by categories, subcategories, country of origin or physical presence of the individual. They do it. Is it accessible to the public or to critics? No, and that’s something that would change with a watchdog. The second point boils down to performance standards. Unless there’s a reason to drill down and get that data to explain why IRCC dropped the ball and missed its performance standard that’s set annually, there’s no reason, no motive, and no energy to get precisely the information the honourable senator needs and would need in the future.

Senator McPhedran: Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland, for being with us again so soon after we had the benefit of your advice.

This might almost be a philosophical question. Let me put it in context because I think your historical and institutional knowledge is really critical here.

I am one of the senators who have been working quite diligently to try and get, particularly in my case, Afghan women parliamentarians out of Afghanistan and safely resettled in Canada. I won’t spend time talking about the frustrations involved in that, but I do want to highlight one of the points that I’ve really noticed in trying to move these cases. Over and over again, I get told that the minister will not play favourites; the minister will not, in fact, respond to particular file presentations from particular parliamentarians. That’s one position about the minister basically not making specialized decisions. What we have before us today seems to be the exact opposite of that position.

Historically, I would really love to understand how this has evolved to such obvious discretion and why the watchdog function that you have addressed is so critical? How is it that we would end up with this bill before us today, which seems to have a very strong focus on complete ministerial discretion? I’m puzzled.

Mr. Kurland: I share the honourable senator’s agenda on this one, having attempted, without adequate success, to bring female judges out of Afghanistan.

Senator McPhedran: Yes.

Mr. Kurland: When I look at the big picture over time, and this is not a criticism of our latter-day executive, these kinds of decisions flow from the Prime Minister’s Office down to the immigration minister’s office consistently and historically, whether it’s prioritizing 40,000 Syrian refugee files, prioritizing almost 200,000 Ukrainian visitors temporary status for three years, or dealing with, as they have done, folks from Afghanistan who have risked their lives to help our Canadian military, among others. How is it that very large numbers of some groups receive priority for immigration processing and other groups do not?

Well, you cannot point the finger at an immigration minister when it comes to this. There are larger issues at stake. I apologize if I’m wandering into the political realm. Were I in charge, or at least had a chair at the Prime Minister’s Office, and my goal was to accumulate considerably more votes in the next election in the Canadian prairies, the Canadian prairies having a rather substantial Ukrainian-Canadian voting population, it’s not rocket science. The distribution of the Afghan vote pales in comparison to the distribution of potential voters from our Ukrainian-Canadian population and our Syrian-Canadian population and the fellow travellers from the Middle East region.

Senator McPhedran: How do we end up with a piece of legislation that endorses and basically reinforces ministerial discretion in one aspect of immigration and we’re told in another aspect, in particular Afghan refugees, that there is no ministerial discretion? I’ll leave it there.

Mr. Kurland: It is really simple. This proposed amendment would give the power to the minister to create ministerial instructions for refugee processing group, subgroup Afghan cases. They can do it with this power.

Senator Yussuff: Thank you, witness, for being here. I guess my question is two-fold.

There is currently express entry in the immigration system. It exists in NAFTA. If you’re a manager and you want to come here, you don’t have to follow the same process as other immigrants coming to Canada. Can you confirm that that already exists?

What the proposed changes in the legislation is entailing is to now grant the minister, as you indicated, powers to do things that are desired by businesses, to a large extent, because there is a labour shortage in the country. Employers are frustrated waiting in the queue, so they are demanding that there has to be some way to figure out how to solve this problem. Is that what I’m understanding to be the political reality of what we’re dealing with?

Mr. Kurland: Yes. Unfortunately, the potential is there to turn the clock back several decades to when ministerial permits, as they were called then — now it’s temporary resident permits — were political currency at the constituency level. They can be handed out with little justification and no reporting, and no one is going to know. It doesn’t happen today, I’m sure, but it also garnered local political support for particular candidates or incumbents. Yes, these proposed changes have the potential to turn the clock back to that period of time.

As the proposed amendment says, these groups can be zero. They can be one or ten — who’s going to know? By the time you publish the ministerial instruction, it is so vague that you will not be able to understand with any precision why these individuals were chosen. There are no reporting requirements due to privacy concerns, so you will not know that all 10 people are in the same factory in the same town.

Yes, honourable senator, you have your finger on a particular problem that’s going to be with us in the absence of monitoring and oversight.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Kurland.

I have a couple of questions about the Service Fees Act. Through freedom of information, you sent us a document outlining the volume, revenue, cost, profit, et cetera, of various years. I noticed that since 2015, Canada has generated a profit. My understanding — and I see that the regulation confirms this — is that the fees:

. . . may not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in right of Canada of providing the service or the use of the facility.

Technically, am I right in understanding that the department has not been in compliance?

Mr. Kurland: The internal department of immigration financial documents state on their face that there is non-compliance with the Financial Administration Act, section 19(2) — on their face. So there is no issue about whether they knew or didn’t know. It’s there in black and white — $46 million profit, contrary to the Financial Administration Act, on just one fee — the employer compliance fee.

The department fought over five years against disclosure of this sensitive information and informed the Information Commissioner’s investigative officer that, if forced to disclose, someone might sue them. So the current position at the Department of Immigration is that yes, there is a profit, but we don’t have to give it back because we’re not legally obliged to.

Again, the issue here is straightforward reporting to Parliament about money. There is nothing more fundamental because these departments exist based on votes in Parliament to annually allocate money. We’re entitled to that information, but because the department has exempted itself from the Service Fees Act and, with this proposed amendment, has enlarged the exemption from reporting financially and from giving people performance standards, it’s the wrong direction.

I’ll close on this point. I usually explain to folks who intend to run for Parliament in the other place that if they don’t know anything about immigration, be prepared, because 80% of the MPs’ day is dedicated to immigration issues. Imagine the benefits to all parliamentarians if the immigration department were to just annually report something like, “What type of visa are you applying for? Here’s how long it’s going to take.” Imagine the work hours saved.

The Chair: If I may confirm what I heard you say, you’re suggesting this $46 million is profit derived from one single user fee?

Mr. Kurland: That’s one user fee. For the temporary resident visa, the admission in court by affidavit and consent with the Department of Justice is close to a quarter billion dollars for the temporary resident fees, and that’s only going as far back as three or four years ago. Later data is not available.

The Chair: And yet, we provide such shoddy service when I think of all the backlog.

Outside your recommendation to us that the system would be better served by more transparency and by the calling into light of an immigration ombudsman, what other amendments would you propose to us to make this portion of the amendment — the Service Fees Act — more useful?

Mr. Kurland: Eliminate that retroactive to 2017 portion. I just don’t understand why it’s there. Secondly, reverse the wording — not “excluded” from the Service Fees Act but “included” in the Service Fees Act. If you want to go the whole nine yards, amend and include every immigration application service to be subject to the Service Fees Act.

The Chair: Colleagues, we have a little more time. The clerk tells us that if Mr. Kurland comes back eight more times, he will get a Senate mug.

Senator Patterson: I have a quick question about the list of immigration services exempt from federal fee legislation. That list seems to be growing, and I understand that there is a departmental remission policy that came into effect April 1, 2021, which lists exemptions. I’m wondering if you would have a comment, Mr. Kurland. Is there any mechanism available to ensure that clients of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada are not, with these exemptions, subject to indiscriminate price increases?

Mr. Kurland: In terms of price increases, they have recently happened for several immigration applications, but the material before us is of less concern regarding price and accessibility. That’s something that one can look into, perhaps, at another time. Effectively, when it comes to the honourable senator’s root question on resources, the department cagily divided the most profit-making services to be exempt from the Financial Administration Act. Of course, I’m talking about passports, where we’ve made literally over $1 billion profit — $100 per passport — which is allowable if you exempt yourself out.

Coming back to Madam Chair’s remarks that ask why, given the profit, for a very long time, it was part of the immigration minister’s question-and-answer card used during Question Period as to why processing takes so long. Minister after minister of every stripe replied along the lines of “we don’t have resources,” which was a fiction because the resources were right there. To not get caught politically, they kicked the ball down the road to avoid the question and embarrassment of past immigration ministers. You always follow the money. Do you want better service? Follow the money, make it reportable and get those performance standards to help not just parliamentarians but ordinary Canadian families — plus the folks who pay money to try to come here legitimately. There is no excuse why the immigration department is so special that it merits absence from traditional parliamentary oversight on performance standards and financial reporting. I don’t get it.

Senator Patterson: Thank you.

The Chair: Since we have a bit more time, let me dig a little deeper on fees. You talked about parents and grandparents. I subscribe to your position that there are many lower-income Canadians who would like to be reunited with their parents and grandparents for very practical reasons, such as looking after a child and so forth. However, in this current lottery system, every time they have to reapply, they have to pay another fee. Is that correct? The fee is not high, but there is a fee.

Mr. Kurland: The fee is not the barrier, but I may prematurely propose a policy solution to precisely the point the honourable senator raises.

The problem we have for many hard-working, tax-paying families is that they are under considerable pressure to provide affordable housing for themselves and their children. They’re at a point in life when they have mortgages, expenses for childcare and the usual pressures that come along with raising a family in this country, and they cannot meet minimum-income cutoffs because the threshold is too high. That denies family reunification to some segments of our society.

I may have a workaround. For every child under age 12 in the sponsoring family, you reduce by $5,000 the income eligibility amount. You get a credit of $5,000, reducing your threshold, because the parent or grandparent can take care of the child once here. Give that economic benefit to that family, reduce the minimum-income cutoff if you have one, two, three, whatever number of children under 12, and prioritize that family reunification to someone who needs the help now. Not in seven years or 10 years, now. It’s that kind of social justice which has been too long absent from our policy-making crew at immigration national headquarters.

Senator McPhedran: Could we hear more about the watchdog function? Is there a complete proposal somewhere that we need to see?

Mr. Kurland: Of what use, frankly and respectfully? I see again resurrected today a call for a CBSA watchdog.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Kurland: I have seen that soccer ball many times. It comes out at certain points in time. It goes back into the warehouse after events occur. Unless this is front row centre repeatedly, unless folks from the other place take this seriously, it’s not going to happen, but it should.

Senator McPhedran: Does the document exist?

Mr. Kurland: Not publicly. The concept has been reviewed. Ultimately it’s going to go up the food chain to the Prime Minister’s Office, and that’s where it stays.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: Mr. Kurland, the number established by the government for high-skilled worker applications was reduced by 111,000 in September 2021 to 48,000 in March 2022, and it is going to be reduced again in July 2022.

How do you explain that draconian cut when they are working right now to improve the capacity of the Express Entry system in order to meet our economic needs?

Mr. Kurland: First, it isn’t Ottawa’s fault when it comes to immigration. The priorities have been established by the Prime Minister, and the priority at the moment is Ukraine. So some cases are going to have to be delayed.

However, people who filed their application to come here as permanent residents in that category are already physically present here; they are currently working with work permits and paying their taxes. So I don’t see a problem in the figures not being the best possible at this time.

Senator Mégie: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Kurland. I predict you will be back, and we will enjoy talking about Russian dolls again. On behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you very much for your testimony.

For our next panel, we welcome, from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, Philip Somogyvari, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning; Julie Chassé, Director General, Financial Strategy Branch; Marcel Poirier, Director, Financial Community, Passport Costing/Client Relations and Fees Division; and Jonathan Joshi-Koop, Acting Director, Express Entry Policy.

Thank you all for joining us by video conference today. I would like to invite you to provide your opening remarks. I remind you that you have five minutes allocated for opening statements, which will be followed by questions from our members.

Philip Somogyvari, Director General, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you very much for the welcome, chair.

Good afternoon and thank you again for the opportunity to discuss proposed changes to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act included in the Budget Implementation Act. As you are no doubt aware, the proposed amendments cover two areas: first, changes to Express Entry; and second, changes to the Service Fees Act to exempt certain fees established under the authority of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Express Entry is an application management system for a number of Canada’s economic immigration programs. Candidates express an interest to immigrate to Canada, and if they meet the basic requirements of one of the programs managed by Express Entry, they’re placed in a pool of pre-qualified candidates and ranked against one another based on a transparent scoring grid that favours individuals with high human capital. The department then invites the top-ranked candidates in the pool to apply for permanent residence through one of the programs through regularly held rounds.

The proposed amendments being sought through Division 23 of the Budget Implementation Act build on Express Entry’s existing flexibility and support Canada’s economic recovery and future growth by permitting IRCC to more easily select candidates that meet a range of economic needs and government priorities. More specifically, these amendments authorize the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship to invite foreign nationals to apply for permanent residence by Express Entry on a new basis — their eligibility to be members of a category that would support an economic goal identified by the minister. Eligibility requirements to be a member of a category would be established by the minister and could be based on factors such as specific work experience, educational background or language skills.

For example, if there were a desire to leverage immigration to support the growth of Canada’s tech sector, a category of Express Entry candidates could be created based on criteria such as possession of work experience in that sector occupation and/or their possession of a related education credential. Invitations could then be issued to the top-ranked candidates in the category. The minister would establish the category through ministerial instructions and post details, including eligibility criteria, on the IRCC website.

To support program integrity, the proposed amendments also direct officers to refuse applications from candidates who cannot demonstrate that they were eligible to be a member of a particular category or, in other words, if they did not have, in this case, the requisite work experience or educational background and so forth.

To support transparency around the use of these authorities, the proposed amendments also require the minister to identify the economic goal they are seeking to support in establishing each individual category. The amendments also include the requirement for the minister to report on the use of these authorities through the Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, in itself a requirement of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Amendments in Division 23 also include technical amendments to Division 0.1 of IRPA, notably eliminating a discrepancy between the English and French version of the text, and a provision clarifying the minister’s authority to specify to which program an invited applicant can apply in the event that the applicant qualifies to more than one program.

With respect to the amendments regarding fees, the department is seeking an exemption from the Service Fees Act for four fees established under the authority of IRPA: the first, authorization to return to Canada; second, rehabilitation for criminality and serious criminality; third, restoration of temporary resident status; and fourth, temporary resident permit. The Service Fees Act received Royal Assent in June of 2017 and requires that services standards be established for all fees and that fees be remitted to clients when these service standards are not met. Services related to these four fees exist to address an inadmissibility for applicants that may have a criminal record or have been flagged to have special circumstances that prevent them from following the regular temporary residence pathways to enter Canada. These services also have highly variable processing times that are dependent on clients’ individual circumstances, and therefore, an exemption from the Service Fees Act is being proposed as it is difficult to establish a reasonable and meaningful service standard for these fees for these services.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with more information on these proposed amendments, and I look forward to your questions.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Somogyvari.

Colleagues, we’ll open up the floor to questions. The first question will go to the deputy chair, Senator Bovey.

Senator Bovey: Thank you so much for your presentation. I have two questions.

I’m interested in the establishment of the categories and wonder, in time, once this is passed, or if it’s passed, how the categories will be established and if there will be consultation in establishing those categories. That’s one question.

The second question I have is this: You closed by talking about service standards, and I’d like to dig deeper on what those service standards are and whether the four exemptions will impact or change those services standards. Will they be met? I wonder if you can fill that out for us. Those are my questions.

Mr. Somogyvari: Thank you very much. If it’s okay with the chair, I’ll answer the first question and then turn to my colleague, Ms. Chassé, for the second.

With respect to the establishment of categories, the department is still working to determine how those categories will be established and the advice to be provided to the minister from the department to recommend instances where categories could be established for decision by the minister.

Having said that, some of the ways by which such categories could be established would be, indeed, through consultation, and that consultation could include provinces and territories. It could include sector and employer groups. It could include those on the private side who generate labour market information, and it can also be those on the public side, so colleagues at Employment and Social Development Canada who generate labour market information for use with various programming.

As well, in terms of informing the economic goals, other points of reference would be through those economic priorities that have been messaged through either the Speech from the Throne, the annual budget or through mandate letters.

I would end with, as well, we would use as a cue the economic objectives that are within the act itself under section 3. For example, ensuring distribution of the benefits of economic immigration across Canada would be one example. Thank you.

Julie Chassé, Director General, Financial Strategy Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Perhaps I can take the second part of the question on the four fees.

The department does publish and report against service standards for the vast majority of our fees. This is published on our website on an annual basis. Moreover, the department also reports on all fees in the fees report, which is tabled annually by our minister. This includes the revenues collected for these fees as well as the cost of the group of our fees that we are collecting.

Specifically for these four fees, the issue at hand is the inability for us to have meaningful and predictable service standards that we can abide by. For the situation at hand here, these four fees are mostly related to inadmissibility, as my colleague Phil was saying initially. In this case, processing times could vary from three days to a year. It really is highly dependent on each individual’s own situation and either criminal record or, depending on the situation, information that we need to seek and produce. In terms of putting forward service standards, the purpose of the Service Fees Act is to be predictable and meaningful for the client. In this instance, it’s very challenging and almost impossible for us to be able to publish service standards that we can abide by.

Senator Bovey: Just a quick follow-up, surely it’s possible to have service standard goals?

Ms. Chassé: Yes. The service standards themselves are supposed to be something that we can predict and that our clients can rely on. In this situation here, they vary drastically from one applicant to another, so you cannot really do an average of an aim to process an application in a certain number of days, like we do for every other fee that we have.

Senator Poirier: Thank you to the witnesses for being with us today. I really appreciate it.

I want to talk briefly about numbers. In the budget document on page 118, it says that the government has committed $2.1 billion over four years and $317.6 million ongoing in new funding. Is that funding targeted for Division 23 of Bill C-19?

Ms. Chassé: I can answer that question. The answer is no, these changes are not costing anything, so they are not part of the incremental cost that is being sought in Budget 2022. These changes are being made within existing reference levels of the department.

Senator Poirier: Thank you.

My second question is actually the same question that Senator Bovey had asked our first witness this afternoon. Can somebody elaborate a bit on what impact those proposed amendments would have on provinces and territories using the Express Entry for the Provincial Nominee Program? I know the other witness had answered, but I’d like to have the opinion from the officials.

Mr. Somogyvari: Thank you.

Within Express Entry, there are several programs. Three are federal, and then there’s a portion of the provincial nominee program that resides within the Express Entry system. Having said that, mechanically, once a province has issued a nomination to the candidate, the candidate is invited to apply through Express Entry automatically, and then the check is done once the application is received. The selection decision resides with the province within the Express Entry system. Therefore, with respect to a direct impact on the Express Entry provincial nominee portion, this amendment would not have an impact.

In terms of, more broadly speaking, the economic goals that reside within a particular jurisdiction and then federal selection goals, which can be national or regional in scope, the department is working very closely with provincial and territorial counterparts to ensure that the effective functioning of the new provision serves to bolster or complement the Provincial Nominee Program but not serve to work at odds with the program. Thank you.

Senator Patterson: Thank you to the witnesses for being here.

I’d like to ask about the proposed exemptions from the Service Fees Act. The provision deems those exemptions to have come into force on June 22, 2017, as I understand it. Could you explain why these proposed exemptions are retroactive?

Ms. Chassé: Thank you for the question. I can answer this.

The situation in terms of why we are asking for it to be retroactive is a matter of consistency and transparency, but in terms of all the other fees that we are also charging, for example, all other temporary resident fees are exempt from the Service Fees Act, and, therefore, applying this retroactively would mean that we would treat all the population or the clients in the same manner in terms of being entitled to a refund if the service standards are not met.

Senator Patterson: Thank you for that answer.

In that connection, then, I’m wondering if you could provide the committee or maybe now tell us how many service fees paid to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada have been remitted to applicants for not meeting service standards. I’m particularly interested in the service fees from the four categories to be exempted. Could you provide information about how many of the service fees in those four categories have been remitted since June 22, 2017, please?

Ms. Chassé: Thank you for the question.

The answer is zero. There hasn’t been any, because the department, for these specific four fees, has not been able to set meaningful service standards to publish. Specifically for these four fees, there has not been any remittance.

As per our most recent fees report, we have issued about 24,000 remittances, mostly related to the passport program because all fees subject to passports are subject to the Service Fees Act. We have issued about 24,000 remittances for these.

The Chair: Thank you very much, witnesses.

Mr. Somogyvari, I have a question for you, and we have enough time, hopefully, for me to ask it. I want some clarity. You have said that the proposed amendment, which would enable the minister to create new categories of Express Entry, is limited to high-human-capital individuals who meet our economic needs. Did I hear you say that?

Mr. Somogyvari: That’s correct. It applies to those who set up a profile in Express Entry that are part of the economic class and meet the minimum criteria for Express Entry.

The Chair: At this point, at least. For the minister to use this new ministerial authority to establish a class that is, let’s say, refugees or parents and grandparents, where there are backlogs, that is not possible? There is partly some confusion here, because we heard something contrary from our first witness.

Mr. Somogyvari: Chair, I missed the beginning part, but I gathered what you were intending from the rest, in that, no, it does not apply to the family or refugee class. The amendments themselves are embedded within the division of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that applies to Express Entry, which is the application management system for the underlying regulatory programs, which are economic.

The Chair: So it is also not possible for the minister to use this authority to establish a class of immigrants to Canada who may be required for our economy but do not meet the criteria of high human capital?

Mr. Somogyvari: Yes, chair, and to clarify, the criteria that has to be met is the minimum criteria for the Express Entry system, which, in turn, is the minimum criteria for the federal economic programs that are served by Express Entry.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: I’d like to thank the witnesses. My question is about the Express Entry program. Take the example of a person who has applied but is not admissible because they don’t belong to any group or subgroup. If that person doesn’t get an answer, can they use the normal route at some point to make an application to immigrate to Canada? Would they be at a disadvantage because their name was in the groups and subgroups?

[English]

Mr. Somogyvari: With the proposed amendments, once the candidate has been invited on the basis of either their minimum eligibility, on the basis of a category, in this case, that’s been set up, or as well on the basis that they have met the minimum score for that invitation round, once they’re invited to apply for permanent residence, once the application has been received, the officer at that point checks the eligibility, because when it’s at the profile stage, the candidates themselves fill out the profile. Then there’s a check that’s done, and in the event the candidate does not meet either the minimum eligibility for the programs that are served by Express Entry, or in the event that the invitation round is one that is category-based, pursuant to the proposed authorities, the application would be refused. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: So they couldn’t use a route other than Express Entry?

[English]

Mr. Somogyvari: I might turn to my colleague here, but I believe the candidate can resubmit a profile within Express Entry, but, again, the key is meeting the minimum criteria for the program, whether it’s a program within Express Entry or any other class under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

Perhaps my colleague Mr. Joshi-Koop can add to that.

Jonathan Joshi-Koop, Acting Director, Express Entry Policy, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Sure. Thank you for the question.

To follow up on my colleague’s answer, that’s correct. If a candidate were to be invited to apply for permanent residence through Express Entry and then happened to be refused for whatever reason, there would be no prejudice to a future application either through Express Entry or another line of business. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: I have another question. In the categories, subgroups or groups, it is assumed that the applicants are highly skilled people who can meet Canada’s economic needs.

When these people arrive in Canada, part of their admission is managed by the provinces, which are most often going to tell them that the skills they acquired elsewhere are not recognized in Canada.

And yet they are being selected on the basis of their significant qualifications. Has anyone thought of something in the immigration laws to circumvent this problem and find a solution?

[English]

Mr. Somogyvari: I shall attempt to answer the question the best I can.

With respect to provinces and territories, each province and territory has their own Provincial Nominee Program, I believe, with the exception of Nunavut. Many of those Provincial Nominee Programs do not run within Express Entry because Express Entry, as has been noted here, does have a minimum eligibility criteria that is in part based on higher human capital, so the provinces administer those programs outside of Express Entry.

The Provincial Nominee Programs within Express Entry are designed by the provinces, but they’re designed with the minimum entry criteria for the Express Entry system in mind. Once those criteria are met, the province itself will issue a nomination to those candidates. The round of invitations automatically invites those provincial candidates, and then a check against admissibility is done at the federal level. In terms of the eligibility criteria, those are set by the province, with the exception of the minimum criteria for Express Entry. I hope I’ve answered that correctly.

Senator Cordy: I thought I was clear, but now, after that last answer, I’m a bit fuzzier.

I’d like to talk about the Express Entry also. Will the changes mean that the minister or the department can change the criteria and the categories more quickly now? How long does it take to add or delete a category? They were my original questions, but now I think you’ve said that it’s the provinces that create the categories. I was checking online and saw such things as physicians — personally, I think it could be health care workers in total, not just physicians — entrepreneurs, skilled workers with — I think it was one year’s experience. However, I didn’t write it down. I’m just going from memory when I checked. Would you make me less confused, I guess, is my question.

Mr. Somogyvari: I’m happy to attempt to do so. I apologize if I contributed to your confusion.

I was, in fact, only referring to the Provincial Nominee Program portion of Express Entry. Indeed, the Express Entry application management system also serves the Federal Skilled Worker Program, the Canadian Experience Class and the Federal Skilled Trades Program. These programs are federal regulatory programs that have federal eligibility criteria.

Express Entry, as a system, is there and manages the intake of applications, and it also sets a top-down assessment of each candidate who has already been assumed to meet one of the qualifications for the programs. Also, based on input provided by the candidate through the Comprehensive Ranking System, it provides a point score to each candidate based on information they provided. Some of that is what we would call human capital criteria at the level of education and work experience.

For example, on education, there’s no minimum educational requirement for the Canada experience class. Having said that, for a candidate to be able to be invited based on the fact that the invitations go from the top score down, those that indicate that they have post-secondary experience at a higher level will receive more points based on the comprehensive ranking system.

I hope that’s clarified a little.

Senator Cordy: Thank you.

I’m from Nova Scotia, so could Nova Scotia’s list be different than Quebec’s list or Alberta’s list?

Mr. Somogyvari: I shall first start with Quebec. Quebec isn’t part of the Express Entry system because, pursuant to the Canada-Quebec accord, they have authority over selection of their economic permanent residence.

With respect to the Provincial Nominee Programs that fall under Express Entry, that’s correct. A different province could have different eligibility criteria for their Provincial Nominee Program. In fact, that’s the same as the case for their programs both within and outside of Express Entry.

Senator Cordy: When I looked at the categories, they are pretty broad, for example, physicians, but health care workers, entrepreneurs, skilled workers with experience. Can provinces be more specific in their needs for Express Entry?

Mr. Somogyvari: May I ask what document the senator is referring to?

Senator Cordy: What I’m saying is when I saw the list online, there were specifics like physicians, entrepreneurs and skilled workers. There was a lot underneath that was pretty general. Would you look at the pretty general information? Can provinces have specific skill sets that they’re looking for, is my question.

Mr. Somogyvari: Yes. The provinces can put occupation-specific lists or filters on their programs.

Senator Cordy: I think it’s only fair that I confused you.

Mr. Somogyvari: My apologies.

Senator Cordy: Thank you very much.

The Chair: Since immigration is so confusing in general.

Senator Yussuff: If I’m to understand you, obviously we’re granting special powers to the minister to act on pressures in the economy that will come, to a large extent, from employers that say you need to prioritize this because we’ve got a real challenge in how we’re managing the workforce; we have a shortage. Is the minister susceptible to be constantly challenged by employers to meet their needs? Will that determine what category of workers will be prioritized, based on the lobbying efforts of those individuals companies that have the need? I’m not suggesting they don’t have a need. Obviously, they will demonstrate that. However, isn’t the minister susceptible to circumventing the system? He announces on a yearly basis how many categories of immigration we will try to select. Won’t the pressure be, now that you have special authority, to use that to meet my needs in my particular businesses or provinces across the country?

Mr. Somogyvari: I don’t think I can speak to the pressures the minister faces, but I can say two things.

First, there are elements of transparency that require justification for the economic goal being achieved through a category-based invitation round, as well as a second reporting requirement as part of the annual report.

With respect to how such economic or labour market imperatives have been determined, again, officials in the department are working on such criteria. As I mentioned, yes, I think they would best include employer sector groups who have identified a labour market need or a need to have employers to support the economy, but I would also say from gathering sources of labour market information, which are also useful. Again, there are such sources of information produced not only by private institutions but also by the government, including the occupational projection database that’s held by ESDC. Therefore, such recommendations would be provided by officials, similar to other initiatives that are undertaken at the minister’s discretion. Thank you.

Senator Yussuff: So you’re suggesting, under the current authority that the minister has, that we can’t meet these objectives, so this new authority needs to be granted because we haven’t met the current objective in terms of the categories but also the labour market needs in the country?

Mr. Somogyvari: I would say Express Entry has been widely acclaimed, including by such groups as the OECD, as being a very effective and nimble and flexible mechanism to bring skilled workers to Canada. The amendments here would build upon such flexibility in terms of allowing for more tailoring of an invitation round to attributes that are, in fact, provided by the candidates themselves that currently are unable to be acknowledged through the invitation system.

Currently, when the minister issues instructions for an Express Entry round, the minister is able to indicate how many, is able to indicate which federal programs are being included in the round, and those are essentially the two main attributes. For example, if there was a desire to meet a more specific need, including filling a key labour gap in a specific part of the country through an invitation round, or to an economic objective such as supporting an official language francophone minority community through those who have been identified as French speakers in Express Entry, those cannot be done under the current formulation of the instruction. This provides that flexibility. Thank you.

The Chair: I have another question for you. We heard from a previous witness that although this measure will move us closer to meeting our economic goals in a nimbler fashion, it comes at a cost, and the cost is the loss of parliamentary review and a certain amount of transparency in that way. Would you comment on that observation that was made to us earlier?

Mr. Somogyvari: Thanks for the question. I would say that within the amendments themselves, with respect to Parliament, there is the requirement of how many of these category-based rounds have been conducted in a given year, how many were invited under this round and the economic goal that was being served. This is an annual report to Parliament that has been mandated under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Thank you.

The Chair: In general, we were also told, advised — I won’t go further to describe that — that it would be important for the system to have an immigration ombudsperson, or something like that. Do you have a comment on that proposal?

Mr. Somogyvari: Thank you for the question. I’m afraid I don’t have particular expertise in that area, but I have noted it. Thank you, chair.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: Immigrant investors, is that one of the categories associated with the Express Entry system, or are they in an entirely different category? I don’t know who can answer my question about immigrant investors.

[English]

Mr. Somogyvari: Thank you for the question.

Within Express Entry, there are the three federal programs. There is no federal investor program, and therefore, those who are applying for permanent residence under Express Entry are doing so on the basis of their human capital and their labour market fit. There is no program within Express Entry that is meant for immigrants who invest. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Mégie: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: We have time. It’s a luxury for the chair to be able to ask so many questions.

I have a question I believe for Ms. Chassé. Under the Financial Administration Act, it is stated that the fees may not exceed the cost to Her Majesty in terms of providing a service to the customer; and yet, through information provided to us by a witness through the Access to Information Act, we have some information that, in fact, over the last five years, the department has consistently made a profit. Would you care to comment on that?

Ms. Chassé: Thank you for the question, Madam Chair. Yes, I can comment on this.

Yes, we do report on cost and revenues for all our fees in terms of the fees report, as I mentioned earlier. This is a regulatory fee that you are referring to. In terms of how we look at overcharge, we look at it from a scheme perspective. We look at it as all fees being charged for a temporary resident, or the workers’ scheme, for example. Under that scheme, the scheme itself is not an overcharge right now. Yes, there are certain fees where the cost recovery rate could be higher, but other fees in that same category usually exceed the revenues that we are collecting as well. In terms of regulatory fees, we look at it from a scheme perspective and we are still good.

We do monitor on an annual basis and take measures to review our fees, to make sure that they remain cost-effective in terms of making sure that the responsibility of those fees are paid by the payers of these fees, and to also limit subsidization by Canadians across the country. Of course, if the fees are not set at a high enough rate, then it means that taxpayers also need to cover the cost of these services to the government.

In terms of this case specifically, this is the situation in terms of that fee.

The Chair: That’s not exactly what we heard from our witness, but maybe we can let that go.

Senator Moodie: I wanted to dig some more, if I could, on the question of oversight. We heard earlier that there may be a loss of parliamentary oversight should the Service Fees Act be amended in the way that is being proposed here. Concerns have been raised and voiced around performance indicators and the inability to understand what the standard of, shall we say, delivery of service will be and look like and there would be a loss of access to that information. Can you comment on that? I’m guessing it would be Ms. Chassé.

Ms. Chassé: Could you repeat that question for me? I’m not sure I follow. Sorry.

Senator Moodie: I’m not sure if you heard some of the earlier witness’s comments, but there was a question about losing the ability for us to follow the performance of your department and the services being provided through your department should the amendments that are being proposed to the Service Fees Act go through and that, in fact, we would lose the ability to understand in great detail and to ask for more detail on your performance reporting in a number of areas. Is that so?

Ms. Chassé: Thank you for the question.

In terms of Government of Canada–wide policies, the department does publish service standards for most of its fees and publishes performance against these fees on an annual basis. This is available on the IRCC website. This is also available in a fees report on an annual basis that our minister publishes for every fee with a service standard.

Senator Moodie: Thank you.

The Chair: I don’t need to speak for Senator Moodie, as she speaks for herself, but I too am curious if this transparency you are providing to us will not apply to the fees that are exempted.

Ms. Chassé: To these four fees specifically?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Chassé: They will not have a service standard. It is highly difficult to establish a service standard for these fees and have a predictable service standard for these four fees specifically. However, all other service fees do have service standards and are being reported against.

Senator Bovey: This goes right back to the question I asked earlier, Madam Chassé, about the service standards in these four situations, if I can call them that, the four exemptions. I can appreciate that you can’t define in detail of what those standards are, but I’m not capable of understanding why there aren’t standard guidelines or goals that the program will work toward.

Ms. Chassé: Thank you for the question.

They’re similar to service standards, so we can call them standards or goals. It is highly difficult to establish meaningful service standards that the department can abide by because they’re highly dependent on an individual situation in terms of someone’s criminal record or their situation. In these instances and from the applications that we’ve been seeing across these four fees, the situations vary drastically from one application to another, so it’s difficult to put in an average and have meaningful service standards that clients can look at and predict in terms of their services.

Senator Bovey: I understand that. Please know I understand that. Where my comprehension is falling short — and it’s obvious I come from another professional sector, so forgive me — is that in the not-for-profit sector, an answer like that would cause us great grief and perhaps the loss of the ability to give tax receipts. The not-for-profit sector has always had to come up with goals and objectives and then the standards that are going to help us meet those objectives. I do understand that you can’t predict, especially with these four, but I’m beginning to feel there’s one rule for one set of society, and another rule for another.

The Chair: Was that a question, Senator Bovey?

Senator Bovey: It is a question. You talked about standards and goals being the same. I don’t believe they are. I believe standards try to reach the goals that are set. Have you, in your departmental discussions, had discussions about what the optimum might be? That’s my question.

Ms. Chassé: I’m not aware of those specific discussions, so I don’t want to talk about that. My colleagues could probably provide more information. We could take that on and provide more information about the various reasons why these processing times vary drastically from one application to another.

Senator Bovey: That would be helpful.

The Chair: Ms. Chassé or Mr. Somogyvari, we’re talking in generalities here. Perhaps it would help if you gave us a contextual example. Why is it so difficult to set these standards, and why is it you need this exemption?

Ms. Chassé: I can provide that information without going into specific details. For example, the situation of determining rehabilitation for criminality or serious criminality would involve the officers going through the criminal history of the applicant, and that criminal history may be in different countries around the world. It would involve working with our security partners in the Government of Canada, as well as partners outside the country, to obtain documentation and make that determination. Depending on when you are able to receive these documents and the ability for all these departments and the other countries to provide that documentation, there is a serious implication on processing times and is unpredictable.

The Chair: That was very helpful.

I want to thank all of you for your participation here in helping us understand these amendments. Your assistance with our study is greatly appreciated.

Senators, this completes the witness testimony for today. Since we’re examining several sections of this bill, it would facilitate the process if you could send your draft observations to the committee analyst on this particular section of the bill so that we can complete our observations on each part. As you know, we have seven sections. I encourage you to send your comments as soon as you can to the clerk so they can be included in the report.

Thank you, colleagues. With that, we are adjourned.

(The committee adjourned.)

Back to top