Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue No. 25 - Evidence - May 31, 2017
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 31, 2017
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day, at 3 p.m., in public and in camera, to continue its study on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 5, 9, 11, 13, 14 and 16 of Part 4 of Bill C-44, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures, as well as to consider a draft report.
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie from Nova Scotia, chair of the committee. I'm going to start by inviting my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen, New Brunswick.
[Translation]
Senator Mégie: Marie-Françoise Mégie from Montreal, Quebec.
Senator Cormier: René Cormier from New Brunswick.
Senator Petitclerc: Chantal Petitclerc from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
I want to remind us that we are here to continue our pre-study of Bill C-44, a budget implementation act 2017. Specifically today, we are considering Division 13 of the budget bill, entitled Amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
We will begin immediately to welcome our witness for this particular session of our meeting this afternoon. We have by video conference from the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic, Mr. Vincent Wong, Acting Clinic Director. I will invite Mr. Wong to present to us.
Vincent Wong, Acting Clinic Director, Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic: Thank you and good afternoon. The Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic is a not-for-profit community-based organization that provides free legal services to low-income and non-English-speaking Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodia and Laotian communities in the Greater Toronto Area.
I'm pleased to be here, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to present on Bill C-44, which I understand is a very difficult bill to review, given that it has so many different provisions. Thank you for your work on that.
Specifically, I'm going to focus my comments on Division 13 of the Part 4 of the bill, which proposes certain amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. I will look specifically at clauses 304 and 305, which we are tremendously concerned about. The clauses together exempt a whole host of permanent resident-related user fees from the proposed "service fees act'' protection. These include, non-exhaustively, permanent resident visa fees; family class and family class sponsorship fees; humanitarian and compassionate application fees; permanent resident card fees; and right of permanent resident fees, among others.
We echo many of the concerns that were outlined by Andrew Griffith about two weeks ago in an article he published. He is the former director general of Citizenship and Multiculturalism. Essentially, Division 13 continues the trend established in 2013 by the previous government in obtaining exemptions from the User Fees Act so that the government can greatly increase certain user fees without incurring public resistance.
For example, in 2013 Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, IRCC, obtained exemptions from the User Fees Act for citizenship application fees, as well as certain other fees under IRPA. The exemption requests underwent minimal scrutiny in the House and Senate Finance Committees and none in the Citizenship and Immigration Committees. They quietly passed, essentially unexamined. But the result of these rather innocuous and technocratic exemptions have been disastrous for our clients and communities on the ground.
In the past few years, for example, we have seen citizenship processing fees skyrocket without any governmental justification. For example, as recently as February 2014, the citizenship fee was merely $100. Now, as of the time of writing, the current citizenship application fee has jumped to $530, an increase of over 500 per cent over the last three years. This change has overwhelmingly impacted racialized and immigrant communities in a negative fashion and has priced citizenship out of reach for a significant portion of immigrants.
Consider that the price tag for citizenship applications for a family of four with two kids is altogether some $1,600, and this doesn't even take into account the additional costs of upfront language requirements that are now required for many applicants under the current regime. That can bump the price tag to well over $2,000.
As I'm sure you can appreciate, not a lot of Canadians have discretionary income to come up with this, much less new immigrants struggling to build a new life here in Canada. The current fee structure has the effect of excluding and thus disenfranchising low-income immigrant Canadians, and because marginalized groups such as women, people of colour and people of disabilities are overrepresented among low-income Canadians, these are the groups that disproportionately bear the burden of these administrative hikes.
In fact, the massive increase in fees has already had a significant effect on citizenship volume. Since the department obtained its exemptions from the User Fees Act, the number of citizenship applications has plummeted from 198,000 in 2014 to merely 92,000 — so more than half — in 2016. Because these fees effectively block the ability of long-term immigrants to naturalize and become citizens, it will further exacerbate their marginalization by blocking their right to vote and have a say in Canadian politics.
Exposure to today's bill — what they are proposing in the IRPA context, particularly in family reunification fees and humanitarian and compassionate applicants — will be especially damaging for low-income racialized community. For example, many of our agency and my clients are women and children fleeing cases of domestic violence and they have no stable source of income. A significant increase this these fees, without any examination under the proposed service fees act, would have disastrous implications for these vulnerable people.
We recognize that there are practical and legitimate government concerns that may necessitate an increase in fees. However, there are better ways than an all-out exemption in order to allay these concerns. As we have seen with the citizenship fee exemption, outright exemptions can have terrible consequences, often for the most marginalized populations.
It is also noteworthy in this case to point out that in the last few years, only IRPA and Citizenship Act fees are being specifically targeted for service fee act or User Fees Act exemptions. In the next hour, you will hear from IRCC civil servants about why their fees should be exempt, but I would point out that, like other government departments, they have the same issues: They have service fee provision goals and mandates; they face budget crunches; and they have to balance user fees with accessibility and equity of service.
So then what is the justification that their fee process be singled out for special treatment, out of all government departments and agencies? In my view, it is a matter of political economy. It's because they can force it through. It is because they know permanent residents don't have a vote or a voice. By slamming them with fees, they can raise funds without running into the same type of resistance as raising user fees in other departments.
But I ask you: Does this type of cynical policy move comport with Canadian values of fairness, equality or justice? I submit that they do not.
Therefore, we propose to this standing committee three recommendations: One, that the Bill C-44 clauses 304 and 305 exemptions be eliminated; two, that previous service fee exemptions under IRPA section 89 and Citizenship Act section 27.3 be reversed as well; and three, that the government reverse the fees for citizenship processing to pre-2014 levels.
Those are my submissions, and I look forward to taking your questions. Thank you for your time.
The Chair: Thank you very much Mr. Wong.
Senator Eggleton: Mr. Wong, thank you for your presentation. You've given three recommendations at the end of it. Ultimately, this committee will pass on its comments to the Finance Committee, which will have a charge of the bill when it officially arrives. We are in the pre-study stage of it.
Let me ask you about another option. I've read a piece for Policy Options magazine written by Andrew Griffith, who is a former director general for citizenship and multiculturalism in government. One of his suggestions is the following:
Require that any proposed increases that are twice the annual consumer price index adjustment, and that directly impact the public . . . be referred to the relevant Parliamentary committee for review in advance.
Would that also cover what you think would be a fair way of getting it into the public domain for discussion, as opposed to the public service just going ahead and implementing big increases like you mention in for citizenship? By the way, on citizenship, our committee indicated, when we were dealing with Bill C-6, our concern about those very heavy fees and how they affect vulnerable people, people of less means.
I'm asking you about Mr. Griffith's idea that I just read from his magazine article.
Mr. Wong: Thank you for the question, Senator Eggleton.
I'm very familiar with that Andrew Griffith article. He makes some very targeted and very rational points on this process.
I would just say that before we get into a conversation about the nitty-gritty of the proposed service fees act, what we're talking about and the concerns I'm raising today are with respect to the full-on exemptions from that regime. What basically is being proposed here in Division 13 is that all of these IRPA fees that relate to permanent residents, in addition to what has already been exempt in the citizenship regime and IRPA regime before, be completely excluded from these consultation protections, which we think makes no sense. Also, we have already seen, in the last three years, that that has tremendous negative effects.
For example, the concern that you raised last time with the citizenship fee structure, which is, of course, very a valid concern, ultimately because they were exempt in the Citizenship Act from the User Fees Act, there was no protection anyway. Despite your bringing up very valid concerns, they could just ignore it.
With respect to the specific proposal from Mr. Griffith on the two times annual CPI adjustment, there is a lot of room for creativity in terms of balancing what is a really onerous requirement under the User Fees Act with something that is more manageable but still gives opportunity for the public, and for you as well, to be able to raise valid concerns. I think the two times annual adjustment is a good alternative out of many ideas that could be put forth.
I also like the idea that they are putting in the option, at least, to index to a consumer price index so that fees are adjusting for inflation and each government department doesn't have to come every five or 10 years and make their case of why they are bleeding money and need to up the fees.
There is always an administrative concern about that. If you tie CPI to raising user fees, you have unwieldy numbers like $92.37 because it was a 2.5 increase or whatever. Those can be mitigated as we move to an online and digitized fee payment structure. I think those will become less of a concern than having nice round numbers for fees.
In general, we agree with many of the comments of Andrew Griffith's article. We do think that the CPI adjustment, or some sort of threshold where you are trying to increase user fees, you should refer it to a committee or have some sort of procedure in which the public and committees can raise concerns, yes.
Senator Neufeld: I don't know whether you would have the information to answer this, but what are the fees with other G7 countries that we compare with for the issues that you are speaking about here? Is there an ability to make some comparison for us?
Mr. Wong: Certainly there is the ability to make comparisons. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but they wouldn't be difficult to obtain. The analysis I think you're inviting is exactly the type of analysis that we need when we are justifying particularly large user fee increases, to take a look at the lay of the land and what other major developed countries are doing with respect to their fees that would be the parallel in our country and making sure they are not completely out of whack. I think that's a reasonable and important analysis.
Unfortunately, I don't have the numbers with me with respect to, for example, citizenship or IPRA. I know the Canadian numbers, but I don't have them off the top of my head for what the U.S. or the U.K. does.
Senator Neufeld: We can find that out. Can you tell me how many years the $100 fee was in place?
Mr. Wong: I don't have the exact number, but it was in place for quite a long time. I would have to double-check for you.
There was an argument, I think, at the time those conversations for increase of citizenship fees were being had, that it was due for a citizenship fee increase. What was unexpected was that it was going to increase over five-fold, with essentially no opportunity for the public to raise concerns about it. Procedural fairness was the issue and concern there.
The Chair: Senator, I think we will be able to get those specific answers next with officials.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I wonder, sir, if you could tell me how many people have complained to you and maybe a bit about the hardship involved. As well, what would your organization consider a reasonable user fee?
Mr. Wong: How many people have complained? Nobody files a complaint, but we have definitely heard from people, some of my clients particularly, and through partner organizations. Usually when a file comes to us, there is a particular legal issue involved.
When it comes to citizenship application fees, you pay to play. Essentially there would be no legal appeal involved. It would be sticker shock; "We can't afford that.''
We have had discussions with partner organizations and settlement agencies that deal with the broader set of problems that immigrants are facing, and they all say — and this concern was raised multiple times when the fees were being enacted — "We don't have the money to pay for this. We don't have the money to just get $2,000 for a family of four,'' or even if it's one person, a single person.
You're not only talking about the fees. It's the $530 for citizenship processing fee, $100 for right of citizenship fee, and now you have to prove your language requirement up front so you have to take your IELTS or some similar English language testing which costs $300 per sitting and requires study. Even for one person that's at least $1,000 in fees to naturalize. People wonder why they are trying, when they are working a minimum-wage job just to make ends meet, to come up with the money and the time for this increasingly onerous citizenship process for which, I think the justification is that we have to make citizenship stronger.
These people are already here. They are permanent residents who have lived here 20, 30 years. The only reason they can't naturalize is either because of money or because they work 60 or 70 hours a week in three different jobs trying to make ends meet. They don't have time to go to school for ESL and get language and citizenship requirements done.
Why does this become a problem? Okay. In addition to not having the right to vote, which is, of course, a very important part of citizenship, and having a passport which is more on the convenience side, I would have to say "crimmigration" is a big issue. Here is what I mean by that: Over the past few years we have increasingly tied the criminal law sphere with the immigration law sphere and basically said there are various tests or criminality and, if you are engaged with the criminal justice system for various reasons, then we can take away your PR and deport you. You can't do that if somebody is a citizen.
We have run into a ton of cases and some of them are moving through the court process and some are at the Supreme Court level now in which you have cases of permanent residents who have been here 20 or 30 years and get into various levels of crime. In some cases it can be even two minor offences like stealing bread on two different occasions —
The Chair: I think you are going down a trail aways. Perhaps you can focus your answer on the direct question.
Mr. Wong: Sure. Well, the question was what are the hardships that are being faced and I have to go into detail explaining why criminality, immigration and the inability to naturalize are causing increased vulnerability and the risk of deportation for long-term permanent residents. I guess that's the entire summary of that. We are seeing people being deported for that. Sorry for the long-winded explanation.
The Chair: That's okay. We will just leave it at that. Senator, you are fine?
Senator Stewart Olsen: Yes.
The Chair: Mr. Wong, thank you very much for appearing before us. You have raised with considerable clarity the issue you see affecting the community you are representing. We appreciate it very much and we will follow up with officials on some of the issues you raise in terms of getting the details for us. Thank you for being with us.
Colleagues, I am welcoming our witnesses who are from Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and we have Matt De Vlieger, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning; Karine Paré, Director General, Cost Management Division; Marie-Pier Côté, Assistant Director, Express Entry; and Victoria Henderson, Acting Director, Cost Management.
We welcome you and I understand Mr. De Vlieger will be making the first presentation followed by Ms. Paré.
Matt De Vlieger, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you very much for having us and thank you for the introductions. Again I'm Matt De Vlieger, Director General, Strategic Policy and Planning. I'll be splitting my time, as you mentioned, with Ms. Paré. I'll be speaking to the parts of the amendments that relate to the express entry management system and Ms. Paré will be addressing the parts dealing with user fees.
My colleague is here and she is really our expert on program and policy issues in relation to express entry.
The clauses that are in the budget implementation act, Part 4, Division 13, and related to express entry are numbers 300 through 303. They are quite technical in nature, so I will give context about express entry before we get into the conversation and have your questions.
The express entry management system was introduced in January 2015 as a new way of managing Canada's economic immigration programs. So there are three primary economic immigration programs. The Federal Skilled Worker program, the Canadian Experience Class Immigration Program and the Federal Skilled Trades Program. It also is the application management system for a portion of the provincial nominee program.
The old system we had for managing applications to these programs was quite different. It was on a first-in/first-out basis, which led to frankly some very long wait times, some backlogs in the system and no way of tracking or identifying the top ranking candidates. So express entry when launched was really the new backbone of the points- based system for immigration.
[Translation]
The new system is completely different. It is fully electronic for the user. It creates a pool of qualified candidates, giving them a score and ranking them according to their skills and experience. This allows the department to select only those who are best positioned for economic success in Canada based on evidence of immigrant outcomes.
[English]
This new way of doing things has enabled much faster processing, so our standard is six months or less in 80 per cent of cases, and we have been hitting that standard. Over time, because of the point system that is the backbone of it, we expect to see stronger immigrant outcomes. The system has been functioning for over two years and has been working well and meeting the processing times, but also meeting the kinds of objectives we have for attracting skilled immigrants.
We've had to do little adjustment in that time. Let me give just a sense of space it takes in our immigration system as a whole. Over 85,000 candidates have been invited to apply for permanent residence since the launch of Express Entry and over 54,000 have already been admitted to Canada through this system, so that's in about two and a half years.
However, through some early feedback, some analysis we've done on the outcomes and some feedback we got from stakeholders, we revealed some areas of minor adjustment and introduced a couple of policy changes. I will give you a couple of examples.
In November, we introduced new points for international students and adjusted the points given to candidates with job offers in the system. That is on the policy plane.
[Translation]
In addition to these policy changes, IRCC is seeking to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to provide further authorities to ensure the system is functioning as intended. The changes are largely technical in nature, and aim to improve client service, processing efficiency and partnership.
[English]
I will briefly go through some of those areas that cover clauses 300 through 303.
In terms of client service, we are looking at introducing a clear authority to ensure that candidates who decline an invitation to apply within the prescribed period, go back in the pool and then they are eligible for future invitations to apply. For the client, it is quite a facilitative measure and ensures they get another opportunity. That is clause 302.
We are also looking at providing authority for immigration officers not to refuse an application, even when in certain circumstances their score changes in the period between their invitation and their application for permanent residence. An example of this is if they have a birthday that would change their age points between the time they are invited to apply and their application for permanent residence is submitted, the officer would then not be declining that. That is, again, quite facilitative and that is clause 303(2).
In terms of processing efficiency, we're looking at providing more flexibility to administer a round of invitations for multiple programs. That is clause 301(2). For example, that would allow us as a department to conduct rounds of invitations to apply for two programs like the Federal Skilled Worker Program and the Federal Skilled Trades Program, with different ranks required to be invited under each program — something that's not possible at this time.
Then another processing efficiency is that we would be looking to allow changes to the express entry criteria. If our minimum entry criteria for our programs change, then we would have those apply retrospectively to people already in the pool to ensure they don't get invited without meeting the new criteria. Sometimes they would have already submitted their application, paid the fees and then we wouldn't be able to honour that.
I see we are running out of time and my colleague would like to address the user fees part. I will wrap up by saying that the changes that we are looking at are very much aligned with the priorities set out in the budget that was announced in March. The budget talked a lot about attracting top talent from around the world as part of a global skills strategy. The budget also talked about the immigration levels plan, the plan that identifies how many permanent residents as a whole we will bring in. Three hundred thousand is the target overall for permanent residents. Of that number, about 77,000 would be coming through this Express Entry system, so it's one of the reasons we want these facilitative changes in now to help with that.
With that, I will leave it to my colleague on the user fee part.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. De Vlieger. We will now welcome Ms. Paré.
Karine Paré, Director General, Cost Management Division, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: I will be addressing clauses 304 and 305.
As announced in Budget 2017, IRCC is proposing to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act to allow the department to set permanent resident fees in a timely manner. More specifically, the amendment would exempt from the service fees act, previously known as the User Fees Act, fees for services in relation to the processing of permanent resident applications, permanent resident cards, and permanent resident travel documents, as well as the right of permanent resident fee.
These amendments will provide IRCC more flexibility in the management of its fees considering the unique nature of its clientele as well as the processing continuum, which includes several delivery programs partners.
[Translation]
Over the past decade, the cost of processing applications and delivering program services has increased, even though permanent resident fees have not been increased since 2002. As a result, Canadians are subsidizing an important portion of the costs of processing these applications. The government is conducting a fee review of all permanent resident fees, and is seeking the flexibility it requires to set fees in a timely manner in accordance with the unique nature of its clientele.
These amendments to IRPA will permit the Government of Canada to conduct a full fee review and set fees in a timely manner if required.
[English]
Despite these amendments, IRCC will still respect the spirit of the act by consulting some of its clientele as appropriate via the regulatory process; establish service standards by business lines; continue to report on service standards via the departmental plan; respect the legislative framework around fees such as the Financial Administration Act requirements, notably that a fee for service must not exceed the total cost of providing the service; and ensure that our fees remain competitive with other countries such as the U.K., New Zealand, Australia and the United States.
It is important to note that even with the new proposed service fees act, IRCC would still seek an amendment to this act as some clauses remain problematic for IRCC, including service standards and associated penalties given IRCC's reliance on factors outside of the department's control which can significantly impact processing timelines. In addition, the complexity of direct remittances would pose a significant challenge for IRCC given the nature of its global clientele.
[Translation]
Finally, automatic annual increases to fees by inflation could be problematic for IRCC given the vulnerable nature of some of its clientele.
Mr. Chair, we are now ready to answer questions on the proposed changes that my colleague and I have presented.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will open the floor up to my colleagues. I will begin with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: I'm concerned about the fees and how they affect vulnerable people; that is, people of low income. We heard from Mr. Wong from the Metro Toronto Chinese & Southeast Asian Legal Clinic prior to you coming to the table about how he felt that this was definitely an impediment for some of his clientele. We appreciate the fact that you are trying to charge a reasonable fee for the service, but there are people of low income, people who are marginalized, people who are unable to afford some of these fees.
We recently had before us Bill C-6 on the Citizenship Act and we saw an example of that, where it was excessive, a 500 per cent increase. We expressed our concern, and the Senate expressed its concern and suggested that the government consider lowering these fees.
What protection do these people have that you're not going to increase the fees by 500 per cent, such as they were in the Citizenship Act amendment?
[Translation]
Ms. Paré: I would like to reiterate the fact that the proposed amendments apply to the processing of permanent residence applications by immigrants wanting to come to Canada. The vulnerable clients in that group are refugees or the class of immigrants who actually do not pay any fees to come to Canada. They are not subject to the immigration fees. These proposed changes affect permanent resident immigrants, in other words, economic or family class immigrants from overseas. Under the amendments, we are not changing the fees, but, rather, obtaining an exemption from the service fee requirements under the new Service Fees Act.
We aren't making changes to the fees; we are actually requesting greater flexibility, precisely to adjust fees in a timely manner and have the necessary latitude to consult appropriately. The budget does, however, contain a measure that allows for annual inflation adjustments to fees. At Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, we do not want to implement that measure across the board given that our clientele does include vulnerable populations. We want to keep that flexibility in managing our fees.
[English]
Senator Eggleton: You want to, but I don't see you doing that because you are removing the protection that these people have. I don't think there is much argument with increases in inflation, but if there are bigger increases than that, then there should be an opportunity for these people to have a hearing.
You say that we are not talking about refugees here. We are talking about people who are economic or family reunification. Maybe some of the economic immigrants will be able to afford whatever fees you put in front of them, or certainly those around the express entry category could. But the family reunification people could probably not afford the fees, just like they couldn't afford the citizenship fees, as we have found.
I need more comfort than what you are giving so far about these peoples' rights to be able to afford the increase that you propose, because you are taking them out of the protection exemption list.
Victoria Henderson, Acting Director, Cost Management, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: The exemption itself would not preclude our minister from setting or fixing fees. Our minister currently has the authority to set fees for all lines of business. The exemption is specifically to give that flexibility that we need when we undertake a full fee review. In terms of vulnerable population or family reunification, many factors in a fee review would be undertaken to ensure that the fees set are in line with our clientele's specific requirements.
Senator Eggleton: But you are taking them out of the legal framework and just putting them at the discretion of the minister and his staff.
Ms. Henderson: The management of fees is being taken out of the legal framework. We are still subject to the Financial Administration Act, however, so that the cost of providing those services has to be taken into consideration when setting our fees.
Senator Eggleton: But that doesn't mean a consultation or hearings by people that have concerns about these fees, though.
Ms. Paré: As Victoria mentioned, the exemption we are seeking is really about the management of the fees and not the fee-setting authority. However, when we need to change fees, we need to follow a process, which is the regulatory process. As part of that process, there is prepublication.
Senator Eggleton: In the Canada Gazette?
Ms. Paré: Yes.
Senator Eggleton: Not everyone reads the Canada Gazette. The poor people of the country don't read the Canada Gazette. I can assure you of that. Is that all the comfort you give them?
Ms. Paré: Well, that is the process that is established.
Senator Eggleton: All right. Thank you.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Thank you for being here. I have two questions, and one is for my information. I don't quite understand "an invitation to apply.'' What does that exactly mean? Do they not want to become permanent residents and we go out and invite them? Do we do a search or something?
Mr. De Vlieger: That is a good question. It is part of the new system that we ushered in with express entry. Previously, they applied to one of our programs and it was a one-step process and we processed their application. Now someone who is interested in immigrating to this country as an economic immigrant submits a profile. That profile allows us to assess their criteria. Then, on the basis of that assessment that they meet the minimum criteria, we give them an invitation to apply if they are in the top rank of that pool of people in the minimum criteria. It is like a front end.
Step two is after they have been invited, they can submit that application for permanent residence and, like in the old world, we process all of those applications.
Senator Stewart Olsen: With this express entry, how do you handle security to ensure that in the six-month period for the people you are inviting to apply? Is there a prescreening once you get their paperwork? How can Canadians be assured that there are good security measures in place?
Mr. De Vlieger: The advent of the express entry system didn't change any of our screening procedures for applications for permanent residents. All of the health screening, financial and security checks done by our security partners like CSIS and the RCMP all happen in the lead-up to the granting of permanent resident status. There might be inadmissible candidates. We always look for criteria of inadmissibility. That screening all happens as it did before express entry.
Senator Stewart Olsen: I see.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: My question pertains to the second tab in the section, with respect to client service. It contains a proposed amendment to give immigration officers authority to not refuse an application. I need a better idea of how things work currently in order to appreciate why this change is necessary.
Marie-Pier Côté, Assistant Director, Express Entry, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: What is being proposed is entirely consistent with how things are done currently. Before the Express Entry program came into force, we had developed a policy because we found that the provision, in its current form, made for a very rigid process that did not provide any flexibility to approve an application when an unforeseen change in circumstances put the applicant at a disadvantage.
Because that policy was developed and included in the operational manuals, officers do not refuse to issue a visa when an applicant's circumstances change, such as their age, and when that person would have still been invited to apply despite the change. Although the measure already exists, we are trying to formalize it by incorporating it into the act. The provision is meant to facilitate the measure; we want the act to clearly lay out that that is the procedure we are to follow at this time.
Senator Cormier: I'm glad to see that the measure already exists, given what I know about an actual case where a French citizen wanted to immigrate to Canada. He applied as an economic immigrant, but it took so long to process his application that he lost a point because his age had changed, and his application could no longer be accepted. This was despite the fact that he had invested approximately $5,000, had a family and was very qualified.
I am therefore glad to learn that the measure will be formalized in the act because I think this is something that causes serious problems, especially as regards French-speaking immigrants who are so important to the Atlantic region.
Ms. Côté: Yes, absolutely.
[English]
The Chair: I want to follow up on this because it is in the notes with regard to this specific issue. The note suggests that under the circumstance where an age changes during the process, that is no longer held against the applicant. Is that correct?
Ms. Côté: Yes.
Mr. De Vlieger: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Neufeld: I want to reconfirm that our fees today remain competitive with other countries such as the U.K., New Zealand, Australia and the U.S. What is in place today is pretty well the same, is that correct? We were getting a different answer before.
Ms. Henderson: It is important to note that our fees for permanent residents have not changed since 2002. They are competitive with other countries, but a fee review would establish that in today's current context.
Senator Neufeld: All right. The other thing we heard was that —
The Chair: Are you saying you don't know what the fees are in other countries in a similar situation?
Ms. Henderson: Yes, we do know what fees are in other countries.
The Chair: Perhaps you satisfied Senator Neufeld, but the full question was: How do the fees compare with the fees currently from those countries? Could you be more explicit?
Ms. Henderson: We do have a country comparison with Australia, New Zealand, U.K. and United States, for example. While numbers can be compared, the larger circumstances surrounding these fees might vary country by country. If we charge a permanent resident fee for a principle applicant, the U.K. might charge it in a different framework. It could encompass family or take different contexts into consideration.
To clarify, would you like specific comparisons?
The Chair: I understand clearly what you are saying is that different countries may look at terminology differently than we do and it fills up in slightly different ways. I fully understand that. Could you give us a ballpark figure for an example of an individual in a specific circumstance?
Ms. Paré: Sure. When we compare our fees to our peer countries, for example, a skilled worker principle applicant right now would pay $550 for an application. In Australia it would be close to $3,500; in the United Kingdom it would be close to $1,000; and in the United States it would be close to $2,000. This is an analysis we can do in terms of comparing them.
As my colleague said, sometimes it is difficult to compare apples to apples because countries have different regimes in terms of immigration. Based on the information we have, this is it.
The Chair: As I understand your answer, the example you gave us is a similar situation and all dollars were quoted in Canadian dollars. Is that correct?
Ms. Paré: Yes.
The Chair: If I heard you correctly, it means ours are at the bottom end of the examples you gave and they rise up to as much as was it $3,000, was it in the last case?
Ms. Paré: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you. That helps me very much. Senator Neufeld, does that clarify it for you, too?
Senator Neufeld: Yes. Thank you for asking.
The other question I have is the person who presented before you said that application fees have been reduced greatly in the last number of years, from 198,000 in 2014 to 130,000 in 2015, to 92,000 in 2016. He seemed to suggest that was all to do with the cost.
Would you respond to that a bit, please, to let me know? First, are these numbers something that you understand?
Ms. Paré: I'm not sure about the numbers that you quoted and what source they are coming from. Is it the actual demand for applications? I need more information.
Senator Neufeld: I will read the paragraph for you, which states:
In fact, the massive increase in citizenship application fees has already had a significant effect. More than three years after the department obtained its exemption from scrutiny of the User Fees Act, the number of citizenship applications has plummeted — from 198,000 in 2014 to 130,000 in 2015 and 92,000 in 2016.
I tend to think what the person was saying to us is that the cost has reduced the number of people that are trying to get citizenship. Do you agree with those numbers or do you have numbers?
Ms. Paré: No.
Senator Neufeld: Do you have any numbers? Can you tell me?
Ms. Paré: I think these numbers refer to citizenship applications. I am here today to talk about the exemption we are seeking for permanent residents. I don't have these numbers with me, and I cannot comment on those specific numbers at this point.
What I can say, though, is that there would be other factors that would need to be taken into consideration when looking at application demand other than fees, such as a change in the application process or new requirements that would have been introduced at that time. I am not the expert to talk about that today, but there would be other factors that should be considered in that analysis. I cannot comment specifically on those numbers.
Senator Neufeld: Is there another expert that we could actually ask or you could ask for a reply?
The Chair: I think what she is referring to — and this committee dealt with it as well — is that under the previous government there was a significant change in the application process because of a huge backlog. It was anticipated that in the first year there would be an enormous number dealt with and processed and then it would decline after that so people wouldn't be waiting so long.
My observation following up on Ms. Paré's observations is that there are a number of factors that go into the issue affecting the application, and today we are only able to deal with this particular fee structure, not the entire issue of overall immigration application process.
Senator Neufeld: Okay.
The Chair: Is that a fair observation?
Ms. Paré: Absolutely.
Mr. De Vlieger: Overall, we have a high rate in Canada of naturalization. It is about 85 per cent. That number hasn't been coming down. Permanent residents who are eligible to become citizens are continuing to become citizens at the rate they have always been. I think the point is well taken that there are other factors that might have seen a dip in the application volumes in a particular year, but I don't know what year the witness was citing.
The Chair: I think we shouldn't proceed further on that for the reasons that both Ms. Paré and I have introduced in here for this. We need to get back to the specific issue we are dealing with.
Senator Neufeld: We will just ignore his observations. I am fine with that.
The Chair: His observations are not something we can explore fully.
Senator Stewart Olsen: May I ask for a small clarification on that?
The Chair: Yes, you may.
Senator Stewart Olsen: You said that you're applying for the right to raise the fees, but the fees have not been raised yet since 2002; is that correct?
Ms. Paré: The exemption that we are seeking in the Budget Implementation Act is to get an exemption from the Service Fees Act, which is a legislative framework.
Senator Stewart Olsen: No, in 2002 there was a fee. Has that fee increased now?
Ms. Paré: If that is the question, no. The permanent resident fees that we are talking about today in the amendments have not been changed since 2002.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Okay. Thank you very much.
The Chair: To be clear, when it was moved from $100 to $500, that occurred more recently than 2002. Was that not in 2014?
Ms. Paré: Yes.
The Chair: But that is a different fee, is that correct?
Ms. Paré: Exactly. Those are the citizenship fees.
The Chair: You are referring specifically to the landed immigrant fee?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I am referring to this bill before us.
Ms. Paré: Yes.
The Chair: We are getting numbers from different categories here and it is awfully important for us to be certain, before we go into dealing with our recommendations, to know exactly which ones we are referring to.
Senator Stewart Olsen, are you clear on that?
Senator Stewart Olsen: I am good.
The Chair: Is the rest of the committee clear on that issue?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Seidman: Thank you very much for being with us today.
Mr. De Vlieger, I want to ask you about a couple of things in your presentation. You told us that the new system is completely different; it is fully electronic now for the user. My concern is about personal information stored in the computers and whether this information is shared. If so, how are privacy issues dealt with?
Mr. De Vlieger: Probably none of us are experts on our privacy policy, but I will take a crack at it.
With the information that is provided to us by the applicants, whether it is their educational credential or age — all personal information — we are subject to the Privacy Act and all of its strictures in terms of the reasonable use and sharing, if there is to be sharing with our partners. For example, if the Department of Employment and Social Development Canada, are to do a labour market impact assessment, that is all done under the auspices of MOUs that are reviewed by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. Similarly, I mentioned that a portion of the provincial nominee programs are through the express entry system. We have information-sharing agreements with provinces if there is to be information shared about a candidate they are looking to be able to access through the express entry pool. It does happen under the legal framework of the Privacy Act and then as it is overseen by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner.
Senator Seidman: Are applicants aware that their information is being shared?
Mr. De Vlieger: Yes. On the forms, which are now electronic, there are all the appropriate disclaimers about the subsequent use of their information.
Senator Seidman: Thank you. I am not sure how connected this is to the exact issues in this particular division, but you did mention it in your presentation to us. That is, the labour impact market assessment exemption.
As you said, it was a result of feedback from stakeholders, and I do remember very clearly, with previous legislation we've dealt with related to this in this committee, that there were issues about labour market assessments and the impact of not doing such an assessment.
I'd just like to ask you if you have any data or any understanding of what effect a labour impact assessment exemption for certain candidates has had. Could you give an example of what that is, how it may have played out?
Mr. De Vlieger: We did hear, in the first year, year and a bit of the operation, on the express entry management system, from some employers who were interested in having skilled candidates come through the system, that the labour market impact assessment component was onerous. There is a fee involved in it. So we looked at what ways we could address those concerns and introduced some exemptions, not for all candidates. I'll get my colleague to walk through it because I do think we have some data now, since the changes, on what percentage of candidates are now submitting with a labour market impact assessment versus aren't.
Ms. Côté: Not all candidates with a job offer are subject to the exemption. It's only candidates who have entered Canada on a work permit that was already exempt from the labour market impact assessment. Other candidates who do not already have a work permit that was subject to the exemption need to go through the full labour market impact assessment process. It is only for those candidates, and these are people who are exempted on their significant benefit to Canada categories for the temporary resident work permit, so it is quite limited. It has been successful in express entry, and we have 10 per cent of candidates who are invited to apply who have a job offer. Out of this 10 per cent, about 60 per cent have an exemption for the labour market impact assessment.
Senator Seidman: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Petitclerc: My question follows up a little bit on Senator Seidman's. I'm interested to know and hear a little more about how the score and ranking system works, even if only because I'm trying to understand and know how it works. It being electronic, I get the efficiency side of it, and I guess my question is: I'm trying to understand how it's efficient in the process for sure and how efficient it is in the quality. You did touch on that a little bit. How successful is it? Also, if you can touch on it, I'm trying to figure out: How is it driven? Is it driven by the market? Is it driven by what we want, and is it fair at some level? Just a bit of an overview, please.
Mr. De Vlieger: I'll say at the outset — and I probably should have said — that the express entry management system and these economic programs we're talking about are for the rest of Canada. Quebec has its own selection system. They are actually interested and about to start their own express-entry type system, but, the way that our system works, we call it a human capital model. The point system is based on those factors that we consider based on a lot of work that we've done with Statistics Canada over the years about the outcomes of immigrants that are most correlated with success and attachment to the labour market.
There are up to 600 points for human capital factors. They are things like age of a candidate, which matters, educational credentials — those are key factors — official language, second official language, something we call "skills transferability'' so that, if you have foreign work experience that's applicable to a Canadian context, there is a way of measuring that and testing for that. Up to 600 points for human capital. On top of that, there are additional points if you have a job offer, new points introduced if you have been a former international student in Canada, particular policy objectives of the government to facilitate the entry of those types of people. The Provincial Nominee Program candidates also get those additional points. That's how it works. That's the front end.
Ms. Côté: What I could add is that that comprehensive ranking system only kicks in once you have entered the pool, so the express entry pool is designed to only allow people who meet the minimum criteria of one of our three economic programs to enter the pools. So, if you meet these requirements, then you're accepted in the pool. Once you're in the pool, we have that comprehensive ranking system that has a maximum of 1,200 points, and you're assigned these points based on factors that Mr. De Vlieger just mentioned.
With these points, we rank candidates against each other, and that's how we can decide. Approximately every two weeks, we do what we call "a round of invitation,'' and we will invite the top-ranking people. Right now, in the pool, to give you an idea, there are about 50,000 people in the pool. So, every two weeks, we could say, "We will invite, today, the top 300 people or 3,000 people, so the top 3,000 ranking candidates.'' That's how the system is going to work. It is really based on the points that you have, and that's how we invite people.
Senator Dean: You all have tough jobs. They became tougher in the last couple of years. So thanks for the hard work you do.
I have two quick questions. We are talking, in part, about cost recovery for services delivered, and cost recovery isn't a new trend in the public sector. Could you tell us, first, a bit about the degree to which this move toward cost recovery is driven by central agencies, such as Treasury Board, and the extent to which it's driven by departments? Is this a departmental initiative, or is it in response to a broader government initiative in terms of cost recovery?
Second, in those cases where — and it sounds like there may not be many of them in this class — there are people who are severely financially challenged, does an immigration official or do immigration officials have the latitude to reduce or waive fees?
Ms. Paré: In terms of the drivers — I think this was the first question — there are definitely policies that are established already in terms of cost recovery by Treasury Board, in terms of looking at cost recovery for the service we provide. So there are some guidelines provided there.
More specifically, for IRCC, we wanted to make sure, from a good management perspective, that we have the possibility of reviewing our fees at least every five years or regularly to make sure that the actual cost of processing the application is close to the actual fee we are charging and look at other factors.
I think what is important to understand is that, when we do a fee review, the outcome will not necessarily be a fee increase. As we mentioned before, we are subject to the Financial Administration Act, where we cannot charge more than the cost. It is becoming more and more important to make sure that, first of all, we are not overcharging because that would be against the law. It is important to understand our cost drivers and to look regularly at monitoring our fees. When we monitor our fees, this is one element that we consider in a fee review. We would consider other aspects, such as the full continuum on the applicant. The full continuum means how many fees they have to pay when they come to Canada — there are many fees they have to disburse when they contemplate coming to Canada — looking at the private, public benefit. Those are all factors we would look at in a fee review and then make an assessment and a decision in terms of: Do we want to modify the fees or not?
For IRCC specifically, we are not funded via our fees, so our fees are going to the Consolidated Revenue Fund of the Government of Canada. There is no direct relationship in terms of fees we charge and the actual appropriation or budget that we get for the organization to process the applications.
The Chair: Are there any further comments?
Ms. Paré: I could add that in some instances, we have the latitude to waive fees depending on circumstances. This is left with the minister of IRCC.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for really clarifying a lot of questions I had on this.
Ms. Paré, at the end, you said, "automatic annual increases to fees by inflation could be problematic for IRCC.'' Could you expand on that? That's something that I'm very concerned about. Locking any kind of fees into inflation certainly takes away any incentive for becoming more efficient.
Ms. Paré: I would just like to be precise in that this automatic inflation clause is proposed as part of this, and is proposed by Treasury Board in terms of service fee act — the changes they are proposing.
For us, as I mentioned, it is really about having the flexibility to look at our fees and make the decision to increase it or not, considering all the factors I just mentioned — having a systematic formula to increase them automatically for us. Because of the uniqueness of clientele at IRCC, we want to have the flexibility to not necessarily do it systematically, look at the cost and all the policy factors that we would want to look at as part of a fee review.
Senator Raine: And also looking at the competitiveness in the marketplace.
Ms. Paré: Yes, I didn't mention that point, but absolutely.
Senator Raine: If it's an automatic increase, that flexibility is gone.
Ms. Paré: Yes. For IRCC, because of the uniqueness of our clientele and the fact that we will want to attract more and more immigrants, we want to make sure that we have that competitiveness from a fees perspective for sure.
Senator Eggleton: Can I clarify, Mr. De Vlieger, I thought I heard you say earlier that a number of people — and I'm using the citizenship numbers just as an example here because of a cost increase that's not formally before us; it was in Bill C-6, but it forms our opinion, certainly mine with respect to impact the fee increases could have. I thought you said that applications for citizenship among permanent residents were generally about the same, but the figures I have — these do admittedly come in the article by Andrew Griffith, the former director general in the department — in 2014, when the fees went up 500 per cent, there were 198,000, which is the historical norm. In 2015, it went down to 130,000 and in 2016, it went down to 92,000. What would account for those decreases if not the fees?
Mr. De Vlieger: We discussed that a little bit and explained that we are not the officials from the department responsible or knowledgeable about the citizenship domain. The point I had made was about the overall naturalization rate. Our rate at which permanent residents become citizens is about 85 per cent overall. I couldn't comment on those numbers, when they went down and what the factors might have been.
Senator Eggleton: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Cormier: Quickly, I'd like a bit more information about the change authorizing officers to not refuse an application. If I understand correctly, the change would put into law a procedure that is already provided for under an existing policy. How long has the policy been in place?
Ms. Côté: Since January 1, 2015. I can't comment on the specific case you mentioned earlier, but it's a departmental policy that has been in place since January 1, 2015, so since the Express Entry program came into force.
Senator Cormier: Is there an immigration strategy specifically targeting the Atlantic region? Does the measure apply under that strategy as well?
Ms. Côté: No, the strategy is not part of the Express Entry program. However, the Atlantic provinces can use the Express Entry program to select candidates in the pool who want to settle in the Atlantic provinces.
I should note that changes to the point system are coming very soon, and they include awarding more points to francophones, to your earlier point about the importance of francophone immigrants. The additional points will come into effect on June 6. That will be another way for the Atlantic provinces to select candidates in the Express Entry pool who are francophone or wish to settle in the Atlantic region. The program for the Atlantic provinces is separate from the Express Entry program, but both can easily be used to encourage immigration to the region.
Senator Cormier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: In that regard, it's my understanding, and indeed it's in the notes that we have for this, that provinces have their own express entry category. The notes we have indicate that there is a very clear management of those identified under the provincial express management and those identified here. Is that correct?
Mr. De Vlieger: That's correct.
The Chair: Thank you. I have a question for you. I believe you've answered it throughout your questions, but it arises from the summary in our notes of the changes that have occurred. The particular one I'm asking about is the following: "It provides authority for officers to not refuse an application, even when, in certain circumstances, there is a difference between the information in a candidate's express entry profile and their application for permanent residence.''
In looking through the larger document, the only examples that I could find were the ones you used that had to do with birth date and the time lapse overall. Is that what this is referring to?
Mr. De Vlieger: Birthday is a good example, and it's the one that we use, but there could be others. If we changed our minimum entry criteria, and it could be the educational credential or the language level you need — if that were to change between the period at which you were invited to apply and your application for permanent residence, then the officer would now have the discretion to facilitate your entry despite that, so long as it did not push you in those circumstances below the score that we are bringing people in at.
The Chair: I did see that in the document as well. The reason I'm raising that is the language is not that precise in this note, and we know there have been interesting cases in which the changes of information on applications at different levels have led to some interesting conclusions, shall we say.
I'm going to get away from that. From your answer, I'm assuming this is strictly dealing with the types of examples you and I have used in clarifying this language; is that correct?
Mr. De Vlieger: Correct.
The Chair: Thank you. Are there any other questions from my colleagues?
Seeing none, I want to thank you very much for this. We got into issues that are quite beyond the scope of this division, but I allowed that to go because I felt it was important for us as a committee to have more information on the background in which all of this fits.
With regard to the specific issues of the division, I sense we are now quite clear on those. You have been helpful with the larger dimension as well, so I want to thank you for that.
Colleagues, we will go in camera to give drafting instructions to the analysts. We will clear the room except for those who can be in the room.
(The committee continued in camera.)