THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL FINANCE
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, September 25, 2024.
The Standing Senate Committee on National Finance met this day at 6:45 p.m. [ET] to study the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, with the exception of Library of Parliament Vote 1.
Senator Claude Carignan (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good evening, everyone. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down, on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your cooperation in avoiding feedback.
I wish to welcome all of the senators as well as the viewers across the country who are watching us on sencanada.ca. My name is Claude Carignan, senator from Quebec, and chair of the Senate Committee on National Finance. Now, I would like to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Forest: Good evening, and welcome. Éric Forest from the Gulf division in Quebec.
Senator Gignac: Good evening, and welcome. Clément Gignac from the Kennebec division in Quebec.
Senator Dalphond: Pierre J. Dalphond, De Lorimier division, Quebec.
[English]
Senator Pate: Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinabe.
Senator Ross: Hello, everyone. Senator Krista Ross from New Brunswick.
Senator Marshall: Senator Elizabeth Marshall from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Smith: Senator Larry Smith, Saurel.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We are resuming our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025, which were referred to committee by the Senate on March 19, 2024.
Today we are pleased to welcome some senior officials from the Canada Border Services Agency; Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada; and the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Welcome, and thank you for accepting our invitation to appear before the Senate Committee on National Finance. I understand that one official from each department will give us a short statement, and then we’ll open the floor to questions.
I’m pleased to introduce Ryan Pilgrim, Vice-President, Finance and Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer, Canada Border Services Agency. Welcome, Ryan. With a title like that, you’ll be able to answer all our questions, and you won’t need any help from your colleagues!
I would also like to introduce Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, and Hongchao Wang, Head, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.
With that, I yield the floor to Ryan Pilgrim, who will be followed by Nathalie Manseau and Hongchao Wang.
[English]
Ryan Pilgrim, Vice-President, Finance and Corporate Management Branch and Chief Financial Officer, Canada Border Services Agency: Mr. Chair and honourable committee members, thank you for inviting me to join you today. My name is Ryan Pilgrim. I am the Chief Financial Officer and Vice‑President of Finance and Corporate Management at the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA.
I would like to begin by acknowledging that the land we are gathered on is the unceded, traditional territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people.
I am here today to discuss the agency’s 2024-25 Main Estimates. I am joined at the table by Aaron McCrorie, Vice‑President of the Intelligence and Enforcement Branch. I am also joined in the room by the following CBSA officials, who may come to the table to respond to questions that relate to their respective areas of expertise: Kelly Belanger, Associate Vice‑President of Travellers Branch, Jennifer Lutfallah, Vice‑President, Commercial and Trade Branch.
The Canada Border Services Agency provides integrated border services that support national security and public safety priorities and facilitates the legitimate flow of persons and goods. To accomplish this, the CBSA received a total of $2.65 billion in funding through the Main Estimates for 2024-25. This represented a $68.3 million decrease, or 2.5 percent over the Main Estimates last year.
This decrease in funding is part of our operating vote and mainly relates to the agency contribution to the refocusing government spending exercise announced in Budget 2023. The full reduction of $66.1 million for the fiscal year 2024-25 is included in these Main Estimates.
The reduction in planned spending comes from a decrease in the use of consultants, professional services and travel. In developing these proposals, the agency worked hard to avoid any impact on front-line operations, despite the significant savings target to be achieved.
Despite the overall decrease in funding, the Main Estimates also included increases for certain initiatives. These Main Estimates include $20.6 million in additional funding for temporary resident processing. This funding is being used to address growing volumes of temporary resident processing at the ports of entry, as well as enhance immigration enforcement activities.
The Main Estimates also include an increase of $20.3 million to support the strengthening of the agency’s frontline. This funding will be used to increase the number of border service officers at ports of entry to serve both travellers and commercial trade.
In 2023, to maintain a stable workforce of border services officers at our ports of entry, roughly 450 recruits graduated from the CBSA College and began working in the field as officer trainees across Canada. This year, the agency is working to recruit approximately 500 new border service officers.
Finally, these Main Estimates include $32.8 million for the Land Border Crossing Project. This project will allow the agency to rebuild and modernize a number of its custodial ports of entry to meet core operational requirements and new Government of Canada standards. These standards relate to sustainability, accessibility and gender-neutral spaces while improving the processing of travellers and commercial goods. The Land Border Crossing Project is a multi-year effort and work is ongoing. Since 2021, three small ports have been completed, with a fourth close to completion and a fifth, larger port set to start construction this fall.
[Translation]
In addition to these amounts, the funding provided through the Main Estimates supports delivery on core priorities of the agency’s mandate. For example, these estimates enable us to take on the significant problems that synthetic drugs and firearms pose to many communities.
The CBSA is working with federal, provincial and local police partners to stem the flow of these threats. We’re working with these same partners, industry and others as well to also tackle the problem of stolen vehicles, and we are seeing results. We continue to invest in creating a safe and efficient travel experience for Canadians and visitors crossing our borders. This includes improving access to self-service tools for travellers and data analytics tools for border services officers.
The agency has implemented the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management project, or CARM, internally. This is meant to improve revenue collection at the border. We expect to fully implement CARM next month. We will also be continuing to work closely with Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Public Safety portfolio partners in managing Canada’s asylum system in the face of unprecedented global migration. Finally, CBSA is committed to further increasing diversity, inclusion, accessibility and reconciliation with Indigenous peoples in all that we do.
I would like to close my remarks with a special note of thanks. I want to recognize the CBSA’s border service officers for their work — the flow of people and goods across the world is not without its challenges. The people at the forefront of our agency keep Canadians safe and prosperous. For their vigilance, professionalism and compassion, I cannot thank our officers enough.
Mr. Chair, my colleagues and I will be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Nathalie Manseau, Assistant Deputy Minister and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Good evening, everyone. I want to begin by recognizing that we are meeting on the traditional and unceded territories of the Algonquin Anishinaabeg peoples.
Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today to discuss IRCC’s 2024-25 Main Estimates. I am accompanied by my colleagues Helene Panagakos, Acting Director General, Operational Planning and Performance Planning Branch, and Jason Hollman, Director General, Asylum Policy & Program Branch.
In order to deliver on its mandate, the department has requested funding totalling $4.19 billion in its 2024-25 Main Estimates. This amount represents a decrease of $294 million, or 7%, from last year’s Main Estimates.
An increase of $445 million was requested for cumulative immigration levels plans, bringing cumulative funding for plan implementation to $1.4 billion since the first multi-year immigration levels plan of 2017-19.
An increase of $90 million has been requested for wage adjustments following the signing of collective agreements, and an increase of $57.2 million has been requested to stabilize the resources available for processing temporary residence applications.
[English]
The total 2024-25 Main Estimates also reflect sunsetting program funding, including a decrease of $348 million for the resettlement of Afghan refugees attributable to the phase-down of funding for processing and settlement activities related to Canada’s commitment to resettle at least 40,000 Afghan nationals by the end of 2023.
A decrease of $119 million for the digital platforms modernization is attributable to temporary funding related to procurement, design and implementation of modernization activities for a client-facing platform and pre-implementation activities for future tranches of the digital platform modernization.
There is also a decrease of $106 million for the immigration approach in response to the situation in Ukraine attributable to the phase-down of funding related to processing applications, providing accommodations, settlement services and transitional financial assistance under the measures related to the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel.
The 2024-25 Main Estimates also reflect the department’s contribution to refocusing government spending, for a total reduction of appropriation of $93 million. Budget 2024 funding announcements are not included in the 2025 Main Estimates. The fund will be appropriated through the supplementary estimates in the current fiscal year.
This is a brief summary of the key investments sought in the 2024-25 Main Estimates. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today. We’ll be happy to answer questions. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Manseau.
Hongchao Wang, Head, Corporate Services and Chief Financial Officer, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the committee for inviting the Immigration and Refugee Board to appear before you today to speak about the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025. I am here as the Chief Financial Officer. I am supported by the Deputy Chairperson of the Refugee Protection Division and the Deputy Chief Financial Officer.
The IRB is an independent tribunal established by Parliament on January 1, 1989. Its mandate is to resolve immigration and refugee matters efficiently, fairly, and in accordance with the law. This year marks the board’s 35th anniversary, and our mandate is as important today as it was at its creation.
The decisions we render must comply not only with the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), but also the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, international conventions to which Canada is a signatory, and Canadian jurisprudence. Given the nature of the rights being adjudicated by the board, case law has reaffirmed that the IRB must afford parties a high degree of procedural fairness. The degree of effort to meet this threshold is significant in every case.
[English]
The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, or IRB, has been increasing its capacity to finalize more claims and is continuously working on streamlining our operations and simplifying our processes to realize efficiencies.
That said, the IRB is faced with an unprecedented surge in asylum claims. In fiscal year 2023-24, we received 156,900 new claims. Based on the trends we are seeing this year, we expect to receive 185,000 claims, which is well above the board’s funded capacity. The IRB’s 2024-25 Main Estimates total $335 million. Those figures include $52 million of temporary, top-up investments announced in Budget 2022 to decide more asylum claims. This funding will end in March 2025.
Adjudication of immigration and refugee cases involves four distinct tribunals, known as divisions. Last year, the Refugee Protection Division, or RPD, was funded to finalize 52,500 refugee claims. We exceeded that target by finalizing over 55,000 claims. This year, through a mix of permanent and temporary funding, the RPD is funded for 57,500 finalizations. We are confident that we will finalize more cases this fiscal year.
In 2023-24, the Refugee Appeal Division, which decides appeals of the Refugee Protection Division, finalized 9,800 appeals. The Immigration Division and the Immigration Appeal Division hear immigration cases, some of which must meet strict, statutory time limits. Through the Immigration Division’s adjudication of serious cases of inadmissibility to Canada and reviewing the detention of persons held under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, these divisions play an important role in public safety and security.
In 2023-24, the Immigration Division decided 1,800 admissibility hearings and 9,500 detention reviews, while the Immigration Appeal Division decided 3,300 appeals. Overall, the output of the Refugee Appeal Division, the Immigration Division and the Immigration Appeal Division aligns with their intake.
In total, the IRB finalized, across all four divisions, approximately 80,000 cases during the 2023-24 fiscal year. In short, the Immigration and Refugee Board, as a key part of Canada’s immigration and refugee determination system, is constantly improving to ensure we adjudicate more cases efficiently, fairly and in accordance with the law.
With that overview in mind, my colleague and I welcome your questions. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Thank you to our witnesses for being here this evening. I’m going to start with the Canada Border Services Agency. I want to some information on the Traveller Modernization initiatives as they pertain to air travel. There are a couple of issues there I wanted your comments on.
First of all, I want to know why we’re still using the kiosks that require paper documents when it seems a lot of other countries are moving to — well, you don’t even need your passport. There is no paper. You just stand in front of a machine.
I know from going through various airports, the kiosks are different. I also notice that a lot of the kiosks are out of service, or when you start to use them, they become out of service. There are also problems with the machines reading documents. It seems like there are a lot of problems with the existing kiosks, those existing machines.
Can you just talk about where Canada is moving? When do we expect to be on par with other countries like the United States and Australia? Also, if you could talk a little bit about how the kiosks are maintained, because it seems like there is a problem with regard to their operation and maintenance. Let’s start with a brighter future.
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. Yes. In Budget 2021, there was over $800 million put forward for the modernization of our systems at the CBSA.
Senator Marshall: But how much of that was for — because I saw on your website that for air travellers, it is in a Phase 4, Level 4.
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes.
Senator Marshall: How much of that is for air? I’m only interested in the air passengers.
Mr. Pilgrim: I would need to get you the exact number. Maybe my associate, Ms. Belanger, could add to that. The main impetus of this project, which is a large-scale project, is for both travellers in terms of creating digital tools — preclearance instead of the paper form — so we fully agree with you that it is time to modernize and digitize — and then also for our Border Services officers to better equip themselves with modern tools, not only to inform their decisions but to focus on higher-risk and higher-value activities at the borders. It is something we are progressing very aggressively. We are currently in discussion with Treasury Board moving the project forward, and we expect good things to come soon, but with better detail, as Ms. Belanger —
Senator Marshall: Yes, Ms. Belanger, perhaps you can give us the date of when you are going to implement this new initiative? Is there a date set, or are we going to continue to use paper and the kiosks that have a lot of problems associated with them?
Kelly Belanger, Associate Vice-President, Travellers Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: Yes. As my colleague Mr. Pilgrim noted, we are working toward the next phase. So the first phase, as you noted, does not involve air. It does involve land. We are going from that, which is Phase 1, into the next phase which is remote, and then after that we are adding in Phases 3 and 4, biometrics and additional functionality within the air.
Senator Marshall: Was there a date for that?
Ms. Belanger: Working toward fiscal years 2027-28 for that. We are making incremental changes, though. We do have our Advance Declaration app right now, our mobile app, and as we move forward with the initial phases, we’re not necessarily moving to a free-flow model within air yet, but we are adding features to our Advance Declaration app. There will be more to do. For the next few years, we are still dependent on those kiosks.
Senator Marshall: That’s really — several years, and other countries implemented it several years ago. We’re really behind. Can you talk about the kiosks — the maintenance of those, because when you go into other countries, you can go through in two or three minutes, but when you go into Canada, you are stuck with machines. A lot of machines don’t work, or you start to use them and then they don’t work. Then they can’t read your documents. So it is just a litany of problems. By the time you get through, you are so utterly exhausted that you think, “Why did I come back to Canada?” So can you tell us what the problem is with the kiosks and the maintenance of them?
Ms. Belanger: At this point, the CBSA does not own those kiosks. They are part of the airport infrastructure. We have a pipeline to them, but we do not own them. The maintenance of them is through the airport authority. That said, with the advance declaration feature, most of the airports now do have — the 10 major airports do have fast lanes. So they have separate kiosks that are for people using the mobile app and the Advance Declaration. People can get through those faster.
Senator Marshall: Do you have some sort quality control program for air travellers? Is there some sort of post-mortem as to the progress of people going through?
Ms. Belanger: Yes. We do have dashboards that look at the kiosks within each airport, which ones are not performing as expected. There are issues, potentially, around things like lighting in different areas, and we share that information with the different airports to let them know. We can go down to kiosk Number 19 is not working, or it has not seen the level that we expect in terms of matching for the passports and the pictures. So we do work with the airports on that.
[Translation]
The Chair: I apologize, but I’d like to continue on this point. I’m going to ask a question, but I’m going to have to leave the meeting at 7:30 p.m., and Senator Forest has graciously agreed to take the chair during my absence.
So I understand that there are improvements to be made and that it’s coming, but here’s my experience. I went to Singapore on a Canadian passport. I was welcomed, scanned my passport, the bio came next, then I entered. There wasn’t even an agent, I walked in like I was arriving home and had unlocked the door.
What’s the reason why, when a Canadian comes home, you can’t just have this kind of system? If there’s a stop order or if the gate doesn’t open, why doesn’t the agent intervene at that point only? In other words, why are we making getting home more complex?
Ms. Belanger: There are reasons why there are issues with that, and it’s a technology issue; we know we’re not there yet. There are also privacy issues.
[English]
We’ve got different legislation within Canada that we do need to work with. We have focused on the traveller modernization project, and we have worked toward getting the funding and moving forward with that.
That said, throughout the project, as we work through it, the plans that we had potentially two years ago, they may not be the same plans. We may leapfrog or move forward with different things, because we know that technology moves so quickly. I absolutely do acknowledge that we don’t have what certain other countries have, but we are working toward it.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Just to continue on this subject, exactly eight years ago, we were entering Oslo, we passed through a corridor and we were worried because we didn’t see anyone. Nobody asked us for our passports. We figured we’d get arrested, that something would happen. It’s been eight years, so I imagine the technology has evolved quite a bit over time since these are cutting-edge technologies.
Currently, what’s the game plan? In terms of the travel experience, when you arrive in a country, the welcome is an important element, and it’s the same for us when we return home. As I was saying, eight years ago, we’d walk in and think we were going to get arrested, that we must have missed a security checkpoint or that something must have happened.
Are you doing a technology watch to look at what the best techniques are, what is the best technology we should be implementing, and whether any of this needs to be perfected?
Ms. Belanger: Yes, a lot of studies have been done on this. For instance, in Oslo, it’s similar to what exists in many other European Union countries, with red doors and green doors; if there’s something to declare, you go to the red door and if not, you can go to the green door.
[English]
So we do look at that. We look at what other organizations have done. Through this project, we have gone to Heathrow and we have gone to Amsterdam, Schiphol, and we are really trying to understand what the best practices are and where we should be moving forward.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: Ms. Wang, you have repeatedly warned the government about the increase in applications. In fact, you told us earlier that you had received 156,000 applications and were expecting to receive 185,000 next year. In March 2024, the lead time was around 38 months, compared with 19 months in 2023.
How do you plan to cope with this avalanche of applications and manage to process the files within a reasonable timeframe?
Roula Eatrides, Deputy Chairperson, Refugee Protection Division, Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada: I can answer that question. There are several requests. We have implemented several effective measures in the system.
[English]
It takes about 14 months, our average waiting time, for a claim. However, as Ms. Wang mentioned, we are funded for 57,500 claims. We are on track to meeting 60,000. This year’s projected intake is 185,000. So money is helpful, but at the same time we’re constantly looking at how we can improve our work.
I will give you an example. We have 40,000 hearings we schedule a year. We can make use of technology. So we’re looking at how we can automate some of that scheduling in order to find some real efficiency gains. We have moved more toward oral decision making. So making the decision during a hearing, it is faster, and the claimant gets their decision right away. It reduces the amount of time to process the decision.
We’re looking at the spectrum from the intake all the way to the decision, and at every single point. Our friends here at the table with us are part of that system too. We’re looking at interoperability. How do we reduce duplication between our organizations? Some of it is money gets us more capacity and some of it is how we can do things better at the same time.
[Translation]
Senator Forest: So the wait time statistic of 38 months in 2024 isn’t real?
Ms. Eatrides: This is for applications coming in now, because more than 75% of our applications are less than a year old.
[English]
We have very new inventory. We have been managing our operations at about a 14-month processing time, but because of the large intake, we’re now estimating about 44 months for new claims that are coming into the IRB.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Welcome, witnesses. Over the past year, certainly since the beginning of the year, we’ve seen a change in immigration. Numerous measures have been announced. I think that at the beginning of the year, we decided to cap the threshold for foreign students, and more recently, we lowered it by 10%. We’ve imposed visas on Mexicans and we’re having problems with the immigration of temporary foreign workers. I’m trying to back off, because we all agree that immigration is a source of wealth for the country — I think 23% of Canadians were born abroad and 48% of Toronto’s citizens were born abroad.
Has a committee of experts been set up, bringing together demographers, sociologists and economists to take into account reception capacity? How does it work? It seems like every month there’s something new; there seems to be overreaction. It also sends the signal that Canada is less welcoming than it used to be, which isn’t very good for Canada’s image.
Were there benchmarks before, or was there nothing? Why is there suddenly a major change? What are the motivations behind all this? If my question is too sensitive, a written answer could suffice; it’s not a partisan question, and the Senate is independent, but I’m trying to understand how the Immigration Department works.
Ms. Manseau: You’re right. Over the past five years, we’ve seen an impressive volume of temporary residents enter the country, and we’ve recognized that these volumes need to be stabilized. You mentioned a few measures that have been put in place, and we’d be happy to send you a written response to show the support that underpins these measures.
Senator Gignac: In your written response, can you tell us if an assessment is made with independent people or research institutes on Canada’s reception capacity? It’s always a little difficult to measure, because right now, I find that immigrants are being blamed for some of the problems or issues we have in Canada, and we see a bit of demagoguery. Given that the unemployment rate is rising, how do you establish the number of foreign students and temporary workers? I’d like to have an answer.
Ms. Manseau: We will be happy to send you a full reply.
Senator Gignac: I’d like to put a question to representatives of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. Nearly 50% of asylum seekers come through Quebec. This is an important question. Can you give us an update on the discussions with the Quebec government? I believe there’s $750 million in compensation for Quebec; has it been paid out? Can you give us an update on Quebec?
Ms. Eatrides: We have no connection with the province of Quebec. We receive applications. Currently, 39% of our claimants are from the province of Quebec. We have the capacity to process cases from the province of Quebec, and we have a national model to improve the capacity of the Refugee Protection Division. We have bilingual members across the country. We can send files and hold hearings anywhere in the country.
[English]
We don’t have any relationship. For us, a claim is a claim, but we do match proportionality, in general, with the claims we have. The way we schedule, we do a first in, first out approach, generally, and we have certain claim types — people who are detained, vulnerable, minors — we prioritize them. But in general it is first in, first out. When we look at our claims, we had a large number of claims that came in through Roxham Road that is located in Quebec. Those are generally done first because of just the timing of when the claims have come in. But right now, we actually have more claimants located in Ontario than Quebec, but the older claims are in Quebec.
Senator Smith: Ms. Manseau, if I could ask you this question, looking at your Departmental Plan, your organization is still falling short, substantially, with respect to the percentage of permanent resident applications that meet service standards. Your target is more than 80%. Recent results from your office said you were at about 55% or 56% of success. Could you explain why you are having difficulties in meeting service standards with respect to permanent resident applications? What concrete actions are being taken to increase this, not just money, but actionable measures that are proven to increase service standards?
Helene Panagakos, Acting Director General, Operational Planning and Performance Planning Branch, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada: Thank you, chair. Out of the permanent resident lines of business where we do have service standards, right now we’re meeting five out of the six. The only one that we are not meeting — we’re close to meeting, but have not met — is the PNP base category. There are several categories. The PNP base is the one that is not Express Entry. So we have a Provincial Nominee Program, or PNP, that is Express Entry and the non-Express Entry. The PNP base, we are missing by about a month, right now. Those fluctuate from month to month, but right now, as things stand, we’re meeting five out of the six.
The ones where we’re not meeting, a lot of them have to do with level space. We have more intake than we can accommodate based on the level space in our levels plan, and that is truly an issue that we are trying to work through.
Senator Smith: Can you explain level —
Ms. Panagakos: Admissions levels. Each category, based on the program — based on the different categories and lines of business, we have allocated space in our levels plan. A lot of times, because we do not have intake caps, those numbers are much higher at the intake than what we can actually accommodate.
Senator Smith: Where are you going with this situation? How are you going to make it better?
Ms. Panagakos: That is an area we are working and sensitizing for future levels plan to be able to allocate further space or to have intake caps so that, therefore, people don’t have to wait in line for excessive amounts of time when, in reality, we don’t have the space in our levels plan to be able to allocate.
Senator Smith: When do you think you will have your levels plan up to that next level?
Ms. Panagakos: So we’re looking at the new MC for levels — sorry.
Senator Smith: Sorry, I don’t know all your jargon.
Ms. Panagakos: — our memorandum to the cabinet for the new levels plan as of next year. There, we’re going to have the permanent residents, the temporary residents and we’re looking at how we can allocate space better to be able to meet more of our service standards.
Senator Smith: Will you have specific objectives that will be new objectives you want to accomplish at that time? Are you ready to start to talk about what those objectives will be?
Ms. Panagakos: Those are all things we’re looking at internally right now. Once we have flushed out that out, we’re happy to come back and give you additional information. But those are things that we’re looking at right now.
Senator Smith: What will be the number one step that you have to take to improve your situation to get to that higher level?
Ms. Panagakos: As I said, I think it is the intake caps in areas where we cannot accommodate with additional level space to have intake caps so that we don’t have an ongoing intake for those particular lines of business.
Senator Smith: Thank you.
Senator Kingston: My questions are for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. I’m not sure which one of you would be answering, but my first few questions are fairly broad.
First of all, I would like to know why there is a significant drop in expenditures for the refugee Resettlement Assistance Program.
Ms. Manseau: That would be us.
Part of the reductions are due to the fact that we have resettled the Afghan refugees. That would be the main part of the decrease.
Senator Kingston: I got the service mixed up with the claim. Sorry, that’s — okay. I understand now.
I want to turn to something that touches on the Interim Federal Health Program. I have worked with that program in a previous life, because I was involved with primary health care. I was working in a clinic where we actually worked with the Multicultural Association of Fredericton, in this case, in order to try to meet some of the needs of refugees and, more recently, asylum seekers.
I did ask some related questions in June and was told that I probably needed to talk to the actual department. So here you are.
I know some things have changed in Fredericton, for instance, in terms of housing people who are asylum seekers. The question I had at that time was around the health care workers who accompanied them. I didn’t quite understand that. In your written answers, you talked about the fact that there were no more asylum seekers staying in hotels in Fredericton at this moment, but in other cities you say that in the interests of connecting claimants to broader levels of care through coordination with local health care partners, some cities have created pathways for health care that are utilized for referrals by the Registered Nurses, or RNs, within the IRCC accommodation sites.
In my mind, that sentence speaks to an issue that I have seen over time, with refugees and asylum seekers more recently. That is that, somehow, plans aren’t made for the refugees, for instance, that we know that we were going to be receiving in Fredericton in any particular year. Certainly, the nurses who were sent to live in the hotels, much like travel nurses — that’s how I think of them — weren’t able to access the system as they should, because there were no prior plans made. I thought to myself that there is a better way to spend your money, possibly, with making plans with provinces and with the Multicultural Association of Fredericton, for instance, to settle people.
I would like you to talk about that just a little bit — why do you do things the way you do? What plans might you have for the future? Because health care needs are not being met for refugees in small communities, at least, in Canada.
Ms. Manseau: I remember that question from the last committee. I’m happy to see that we have provided a written response. I’ll be happy to bring back your request for further clarifications and provide you with a written response.
Senator Kingston: I would really like to think about other solutions as well, because it’s concerning to think that money is being spent and yet needs are not being met because of processes as opposed to actual dollars, probably.
Senator Ross: My question is for, Ms. Manseau.
In 2021, the then minister, Mr. Mendicino, announced over $428 million over five years dedicated to the enterprise-wide Digital Platform Modernization program to improve application processing.
You mentioned this evening a decrease in funding for that item. I would like you to elaborate on what that decrease was about and why.
Ms. Manseau: There was a decrease in the Main Estimates because a portion of the pre-implementation of the project has been concluded, but in the Supplementary Estimates (A), funding was sought for the PM of $90 million for the further implementation of the program in 2024-25 and future years.
Senator Ross: I did see that line item in Supplementary Estimates (A) — the $84.6 million — but it did confuse me because it’s an ongoing program. I was surprised to see it in Supplementary Estimates rather than in the Main Estimates.
Ms. Manseau: The way the funding has been allocated for the program is that we need to go and seek funding by tranches. The funding is in the fiscal framework, but the department needs to seek funding as we require it.
Senator Ross: So the modernization program was supposed to be a five-year program. We’re in year four. Where are we, with respect to the program?
Ms. Manseau: The funding was allocated in Budget 2021 — $910 million was allocated over five years. There was a planning phase that was concluded last fiscal year, and we’re now implementing the different projects under the program. I can give you a list of what has been accomplished so far.
In June — what we’re planning in the current fiscal year — in June 2024, we introduced a new online account for temporary resident visa applications. That’s a first step toward a single window account for users to access all IRCC services. That was done and launched in June 2024.
In the fall, we’re also planning to launch the online passport renewal services. That would be for adult renewal applications. So we’ll see that launch in the next few months.
In early 2025, there will be a pilot on issuing digital travel and immigration documents for visas. That’s planned for early next year. In the spring, we’ll also be introducing a platform to support a modernized client support service delivery model. That will allow client inquiries to be managed more efficiently across all channels.
Senator Ross: In the original plans there was talk of a single digital application form for international students. Has that been accomplished? Where is that in the plan?
Ms. Manseau: It’s not currently planned for in the current fiscal rear year. I have only listed what we’re planning for the current fiscal year. What has been launched recently is the online account for the visas applications.
Senator Ross: Thank you.
Senator Pate: My question is a follow-up from the one I asked CBSA and IRCC about a policy change made in September 2023. We did receive a written response from CBSA. This was the issue of how to increase access to temporary residents permits for former children in care, who are now at risk of removal. As you know, someone who is in care, the state becomes their parent, and while that is a provincial jurisdiction in terms of child welfare, the fact that the state is responsible for ensuring people get immigration status, so your parents if it’s not the state. It’s an obvious question of what responsibility does CBSA have when the jurisdiction that is their parent has not done its job?
I would like to have some clarification, please, about how many applications have been made for temporary residents permits under this policy since its introduction? As well as how many applications have been made for permanent residents under a similar policy for former children in care since its introduction in January 2024? For each of these totals, please indicate how many applications have been accepted and rejected, as well as how many fall under other statuses, whether it’s discontinued or still being processed et cetera.
Also, please specify how many people who have made these two types of applications have been deported, and what the basis for the deportations were. Also any data you can provide regarding the number of deportations of children formerly in care in the year prior to the change of policy in September 2023.
Ms. Manseau: It’s partly a question for IRCC and partly for CBSA. I’ve been consulting with my colleague. We don’t have that data here with us, but we are happy to provide that information in writing.
Aaron McCrorie, Vice-President, Intelligence and Enforcement Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: Our systems don’t track that detail in terms of who has been removed, so we can’t trace it back to say if this removal was somebody with a child in care. I can confirm that for you. I don’t think we have that statistic, but we can confirm it for you.
Senator Pate: I would be very interested in that. Given it’s a new policy, why would this not be followed?
Mr. McCrorie: I’m not saying we’re not following it; I’m saying that we’re not capable of tracking that. What would happen is that if the individual is issued a temporary resident permit, or TRP, that would suspend the removal. There would be no removal if the TRP were issued.
Senator Pate: Before a different committee, there was evidence provided that the government was concerned about an expansion of the policy proposed in a bill that former senator Mobina Jaffer introduced — Bill S-235 — and I’m curious then if you don’t keep track of that, how the government evaluated whether that would be a policy that would influence your numbers, because that was the implication at the committee. I’m interested to know, if you find that you’re not keeping track of the numbers, how are you evaluating the relative success or the impact of these policy changes?
Ms. Manseau: If we do have the data, we’ll be happy to provide it to you.
Senator Pate: The gap in data is particularly concerning because the ability to apply for permanent resident status under the policy is for a limited time that ends in 2027. I’m curious about what the justification for the time limit is, what concrete measures you’re taking to ensure that all who are eligible are able to apply, and that they are receiving information about the availability of this option.
The Toronto Star recently reported that in July 2023, Ottawa spent more than $62 million deporting 16,000 people. The number and costs of deportations increased in 2021-22, and 2023 and is the highest it has been since 2012. About 90% of the deportations since 2005 have been listed as for non-compliance. Advocates have labelled this deportation rate and expense of unprecedented. I’m curious how both of your departments are justifying these increase, particularly given the government’s commitment in December 2021 to a regularization program for undocumented migrants. That program has not been delivered, and the minister of immigration indicates that he is continuing to study options.
Mr. McCrorie: From a CBSA point of view, we have a legal obligation to remove individuals if there is a removal order in place as soon as possible. That obligation is enshrined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, or IRPA. It can have implications for national security or public safety. We believe that the removal program is integral to a secure immigration program with integrity. We focus our removals on what we call our tier 1 removals, which is people with serious inadmissibility issues. Our second tier are people who failed irregular arrival — irregular claimants who arrived irregularly. Tier 3 is failed refugee claimants, and tier 4 is all other inadmissibility. Our primary focus is to remove people who represent a danger to Canada. But overall, it is about ensuring the integrity of the system.
Senator Pate: Would those be included in the 90% for non‑compliance?
Mr. McCrorie: I apologize. I’m not sure what the non‑compliance reference is. For us, it will be inadmissibility under one of the sections of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. It would be a serious inadmissibility like criminality or war crimes, or it could be a failed refugee claimant whose claim failed.
Senator Dalphond: My question is for the Immigration and Refugee Board. I think I read that, as of August, you had 240,000 pending refugee claims. I understand you are equipped to process about 57,000 to 60,000 per year, so it would take four years to process the backlog, assuming there are no new files.
How are you going to do it?
Ms. Eatrides: By using techniques to try to improve efficiency in the system.
We try to allocate the right proportion of resources to complexity of claims.
We have something called a task force on less complex claims that we use. We try to allocate the right proportion of resources to complexity of claims. We have a stream of cases that can range from 20 to 30% of our claims, where identity has been established, our partners have done all of their security work on the files. They have told us they are not going to intervene in person, the issues aren’t complex, and we can stream them through an easier process where it’s a paper decision or it’s a short hearing. We reduce the timelines down to nine months for those claims. That’s one thing we use. We’re looking at technology. We have had a portal that we use, that’s electronic. It has been successful. We’re going to expand it to claimants, so then we can start looking at using more technology to do advanced triage and streaming. Right now we use a lot of people to do those functions. We would never use technology in terms of decision making, but we can use it to support us in those ways.
Really, it’s about how we work better to try to increase those efficiencies. We have digitized files, so we can allocate files across the country to all different areas of the country and different time zones to try to maximize the number of hearings that we have as well with those files.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution. It’s really looking at every stage of the process, from the moment a file comes in, to how we schedule it, stream it, decide to try to increase those efficiencies, and use the funds that we have right now.
Senator Dalphond: You think you are going to manage to get rid of the backlog within a year?
Ms. Eatrides: No, we will not be able to do that.
Senator Dalphond: The measures will not be enough?
Ms. Eatrides: It depends on what you set your processing time as. For what we’re funded for, we estimate we’re on track to doing about 60,000, but with the sheer volume, we’re looking at a processing time for a new claim of around 44 months —
Senator Dalphond: Forty-four months?
Ms. Eatrides: — to clear the current backlog.
Senator Dalphond: That’s close to four years — three years and a half of waiting. There was that Division 38 in the Budget Implementation Act that was apparently asked by you to improve the systems and to have deemed things that were removed from the Budget Implementation Act. How does it affect your operation?
Ms. Eatrides: We aren’t involved in the legislative proposals. I would probably turn it to my colleagues on the legislative reform package.
Senator Dalphond: Were you not consulted or part of that?
Ms. Eatrides: We are independent of the policy side, so we don’t put forward legislation.
Senator Dalphond: Suggestions, no? Because we’re told that would be streamlining the process and make it faster and more efficient. But you were not part of that?
Ms. Eatrides: We do provide input into different proposals that are being recommended, but we do not have a policy legislative function at the Immigration and Refugee Board. We’re an independent, arm’s-length tribunal.
Senator Dalphond: Did you look at that chapter from your own side, Division 38? If it passes, it will have the following impact; if it doesn’t pass, it would have the following impact. There was no assessment like that done by you?
Ms. Eatrides: We looked at it when it was published, so it hasn’t been enacted. I’m really not in a position to comment on it.
Senator Dalphond: When you look at it, when it was in the draft process, was it to have a significant impact on your operations?
Ms. Eatrides: I really can’t provide comment on that.
Senator Dalphond: Thank you.
Senator Marshall: Just going back to Canada Border Services Agency again. Talking about the modernization of travellers by air. There is a document called the multi-year suite of traveller modernization initiatives. Is that a document that we can get a copy of? Could you send that to the clerk? Would that indicate as the dates for the implementation of various processes?
Jennifer Lutfallah, Vice-President, Commercial and Trade Branch, Canada Border Services Agency: I’ll answer that. I’m not exactly sure which document.
Senator Marshall: The website references something called the multi-year suite of Traveller Modernization initiatives. You were saying in your earlier testimony, when I was looking at when the government was going to implement the paperless system. I think you said 2027-28 is what is slated right now. So I was interested in seeing the entire document to see what is in it.
Ms. Belanger: Yes, absolutely.
Senator Marshall: Okay.
Ms. Belanger: We’ll look at that and we will present that to the committee.
Senator Marshall: Thank you. I have another question also for Canada Border Services. It’s related to the professional and special services which is about 20% of your budget. Can you give us some insight into exactly what you would be purchasing in the area of professional and special services and why it’s such a significant portion of your budget?
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the question. Yes, it is a significant part of our budget. It has gone down by about 10% this year, which we are happy to show due to a decrease in the use of external consultants. This number includes internal expenditures to other government departments as well as external expenditures. About half of the expenditures are to internal departments such as the Department of Justice, Shared Services, Public Services and Procurement Canada.
Senator Marshall: Why would —
Mr. Pilgrim: Justice is all of our legal expenditures, our lawyers. All of our IT is purchased through Shared Services, and the Canada Revenue Agency provides a platform for financial and HR services. Public Services and Procurement Canada provides all of our buildings. We pay a fee every year for all of our infrastructure and our buildings.
Senator Marshall: What’s the other half?
Mr. Pilgrim: It could be commissionaires stationed at our buildings. It could be for guard services at our immigration holding centres. It could be some consultants helping build some of our major IT systems.
Senator Marshall: Would there be any money in there for this suite of the modernization initiatives?
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes.
Senator Marshall: Are you able to tell us how much? Fifty percent is internal which is $250 million, so how much of the $250 million?
Mr. Pilgrim: This year, just for example, we have a budget of about $158 million for the Travel Modernization initiative. But that will include internal costs as well. So there will be a split between internal CBSA employees, back office employees and then external consultants, but perhaps Ms. Belanger has a bit more detail on the split this year.
Senator Marshall: I think that’s sufficient. I have a question also for Ms. Wang or her colleagues.
Based on the numbers that you are speaking to earlier — and Senator Dalphond alluded to it — I know you’re implementing some improvements in your processes and you’re trying different things. Based on the numbers that you’re telling us, it seems to me that your inventory is only going to grow. At the end of this year, I would expect your inventory of claims to be processed would be larger than it was at the beginning of the year. It seems as if you’re in a growth industry and that you might take various types of actions, but it is going to be a growth industry. Can you confirm and speak to that very briefly?
Ms. Wang: Thank you for the question. From a financial perspective, in addition to the efficiency measures that my colleague described, we are working with partners, IRCC and CBSA, to secure the funding announced in Budget 2024. The Government of Canada proposes to provide IRCC, CBSA and IRB $743.5 million over five years. This is to support the stability and integrity of Canada’s asylum system.
I’ll turn to my colleague to see if there are additional insights.
Senator Marshall: Even with that, are you foreseeing a reduction in your case load at the end of this fiscal year? I just don’t see it based on your testimony here this evening.
Ms. Eatrides: There is a global migration crisis, right? We don’t control our intake and who comes into the country, so we’re takers.
Senator Marshall: You’re looking at the numbers and that’s all I’m talking about, your numbers. I would see that the number of people in your inventory at the end of this year, based on the numbers you have quoted today, will be larger than it was at the beginning of the year. I wanted to make sure that my interpretation of your testimony is correct. You’re in a growth industry and you don’t foresee at this point in time it’s going to diminish.
Ms. Eatrides: That’s right.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: We’re going to go to the Canada Border Services Agency, or CBSA, and we’re going to discuss a subject that’s been much talked about, namely ArriveCAN. We won’t go back over the fact that this program cost $60 million; I don’t want to go over that again, because we’ve discussed it at great length.
I’d like to have the statistics. How many travellers have used ArriveCAN since the beginning of the year? What percentage of Canadian travellers use the application and ArriveCAN?
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you for the question. Right now, about 300,000 people use the system every month — so, over three million a year — to pre-declare.
Senator Gignac: I have no idea what that means as a percentage. Is it 15%, 50%? What percentage of workers are coming in?
Mr. Pilgrim: Oh! That’s mathematics!
Senator Gignac: From what I’ve read in La Presse, only 13% of travellers use ArriveCAN. Is this really the case?
Mr. Pilgrim: That would be three million out of about 90 million.
Senator Gignac: I can do a little quick math and get a number. Okay.
Mr. Pilgrim: A lot of people use it, and the program my colleague Ms. Belanger is working on will be an improvement on the current system. It helps speed up the process for travellers and for us. So we suggest that people use it.
Senator Gignac: Is what I read correct, that travellers save 50% of their time, and that it takes 40 seconds less in general when using ArriveCAN?
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes, that’s right. It takes 40 to 41 seconds less, but with two or three million people….
Senator Gignac: That’s not much.
Mr. Pilgrim: No, but it’s time.
Senator Gignac: Are you going to do an awareness campaign? If things go faster, the traveller’s experience will improve. What is your strategy? We’ve invested $60 million in public funds in Canada.
Mr. Pilgrim: That’s a good suggestion. We’re happy that the system is working well, but it would be better if more people used it. About 12% of people in airports use it at the moment. This system works and yes, we should advertise a bit more to increase those numbers.
Senator Gignac: It’s a suggestion. We are a non-partisan Senate, but we want this program to be effective because of the public funds that have been invested.
Finally, can ArriveCAN be used at all airports in Canada?
Mr. Pilgrim: Only at the 10 largest airports.
Senator Gignac: I’m from the Quebec area. There are places where you can and places where you can’t use it. I just wanted to know.
I’ll leave some time for my colleagues, who have some very pertinent questions. Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: I would like to ask the people from the IRB a question, if I could. A key risk identified in your departmental plan is recruitment and retention. Due to the competitive and highly mobile nature of the labour market, IRB may have difficulties attracting and retaining high-skilled employees. Could you provide specifics on strategies that you can implement to attract and retain highly skilled workers? Do you have the data to share about your success in this regard?
Ms. Eatrides: I would be happy to take that question. The good news is that we’re at a full complement of our adjudicators. We have a strategy of hiring adjudicators from across Canada. It is a mix. We have people who are lawyers, we have a lot of individuals who have worked for NGOs, who understand context, have worked in the humanitarian resettlement industries. We have gone out and run competitive public processes, but also worked a lot with various stakeholder groups like NGOs and bar associations to recruit our members. Once they come into the Refugee Protection Division, we have an extensive training program of around eight weeks, wherein we have sessions around substantive law and how to manage a hearing room. We run individuals through mock files as well. From start to finish, you are working with a file. We do practice hearings with them, we have a mentorship coaching system. We also have a legal reasons review. We have our own independent legal department that reviews their reasons for the first six months that they work at the board to ensure that the quality is there.
With growth, the concern is always that we’re efficient, but we want to make sure that we have quality as well. With a high‑growth model, we have also put in place a number of quality safeguards to ensure that we’re meeting the requirements in terms of what we see as our adjudicative vision of consistency in issuing decisions that are fair in accordance with the law.
We have been successful in terms of recruiting and retaining our workforce. Right now we actually have a stable workforce across the country.
Senator Smith: Do you have the measurement system in place so you can track everything that you are doing? Is that correct?
Ms. Eatrides: We do.
Senator Smith: Maybe I could go back to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada. More than 13,000 international students have applied for asylum in Canada. As of August, according to reports, it has always been clear that student visas are not automatically a pathway to residency and, ultimately, citizenship here.
I’m trying to understand the difference between students who come in on student visas and students who come in and suddenly, after they get a visa, try to claim asylum. I’m just wondering if you could talk about the updates on the total number of international students that have applied for asylum here in Canada. It seems to be that if a student is coming from a foreign country and gets the temporary residency to go to school here and suddenly applies for asylum, then that precludes somebody else who may need it from getting into the country. It sort of looks like a set-up or somebody manipulating the system. I was just wondering how many of these students have applied for asylum, because it really muddies the water. I think it does. It sounds like it does, doesn’t it?
Ms. Manseau: Thank you for the question. As we mentioned a little earlier, a number of measures have been put in place to reduce the temporary residents. I’ll check in with my colleague if we have the data on students that have sought asylum.
Senator Smith: I think that would be something that you could look at, dig up for us and send it back to us in writing. Because it just seems that there is a contradiction in the system when suddenly you have a student visa and can go to school, but that student could be coming from a wealthy family. Why does that student have to go for asylum unless there is some manipulation there? I would just like to get a comment from you on how you manage the manipulation so that you can focus on what should be focusing on. Students who have a legitimate passport to come in and go to school is one thing, but when they go back and say, oh, I’m afraid someone is going to shoot me or my family is in trouble back home, I need to have an asylum claim, it just doesn’t make sense.
[Translation]
Senator Éric Forest (Deputy Chair) takes the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Can you send us the answer and statistics in writing?
Senator Smith: Could we have 30 seconds for a quick response now?
The Deputy Chair: This is what the lady is going to give us.
Ms. Panagakos: We have these figures and we’ll be happy to send them to you. I don’t have them here with me, but I have them.
The other thing is that we’re looking at this to see what indicators might give us additional clues on the integrity side of the program. Indeed, a student who is granted a student visa is there to study. On the other hand, we are seeing certain trends. We’re currently looking specifically at indicators that may give us further clues for the future. We’ll be happy to provide you with these figures.
Senator Smith: It would be interesting to know how many students apply for asylum. In my opinion, it clogs up the system.
Senator Dalphond: I’ll start by following up on Senator Gignac’s question about ArriveCAN. You say it goes 40 seconds faster in the interaction with the machine, but in the system, when I use it at Trudeau airport, I take the green aisle that says “arrive Canada” and I don’t wait. I go to the machine right away. I see all the people in line waiting 5, 10, 15 minutes to get to the machine. I don’t save 40 seconds, I save 15 minutes.
Mr. Pilgrim: This 46-second statistic is the time saved at the wicket.
Senator Dalphond: So, the strategy is to put green arches that mention that if you filled out the form on the plane before getting off, you can go through there, because there’s no one there.
Mr. Pilgrim: Exactly.
Senator Dalphond: When next door, it doesn’t help, because there are lines with 500 people.
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes, it’s worth it and it’s a great system that we encourage. There’s an advertising campaign, but as you mentioned, we’re going to do more, because there are a lot of people using it. The application has a rating of 4.9 stars out of five from Apple users and a rating of 4.8 stars out of five for Android users.
Senator Dalphond: I love this. I get there and see everyone waiting and I can walk through, as if I had a diplomatic passport.
I’m not sure whether my next question is for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada or the Canada Border Services Agency. Who is currently negotiating with the Correctional Service of Canada to set up special handling units for people whom you consider at risk, who will no longer be held in provincial jails and who can’t be held in a penitentiary?
Mr. Pilgrim: We can answer the question. This summer, we had the option of using Correctional Service of Canada buildings. The agreements with the provinces changed, and we need somewhere to place these high-risk people.
Senator Dalphond: Won’t this agreement with the provinces be coming to an end soon?
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes. I hope that it can continue, but we must be ready for the day when we no longer have this option.
Senator Dalphond: What’s the timetable? When do you plan to introduce these new special handling units, which will be close to the prison but separate from the prisoners?
Mr. McCrorie: Thank you for the question.
[English]
With the provincial withdrawals, Ontario is the only province that is continuing to accept immigration detainees. All of the provinces have ended their agreements with us. Historically, we use those provincial facilities to hold those whom we have assessed to be higher-risk detainees.
Our existing facilities in Montréal, Laval, Toronto and Surrey are not equipped to hold high-risk detainees. They are more open concept, free flowing. They are detention facilities but they are not equipped to deal with people who pose a risk of violence to other people.
The federal government has provided us funding in Budget 2024 to upgrade our three facilities. We have some capacity in Surrey, very little, and we’ll be upgrading our facilities in Toronto and Laval.
In addition, as you well know, the Budget Implementation Act included legislation that effectively — I describe it as a sublet relationship.
Correctional Service Canada is going to sublet us space. We have identified a facility that was announced earlier in September, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, north of Montréal. There’s a facility. The way it is designed, it is a completely separate space of the CSC facility there that will be wholly operated and controlled by Canadian Border Services Agency. That does a couple of things: It ensures there is a complete separation between the federal prisoners who were in CSC’s care and control and those detainees who are with us.
Senator Dalphond: You are going to move them from Laval to Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines?
Mr. McCrorie: We will only use Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines for those who are deemed high risk. The legislation included strict criteria.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that. So that means it will be remote from Montréal to downtown.
Mr. McCrorie: It will be more remote.
Senator Dalphond: It will be even more difficult to meet with their family or other people?
Mr. McCrorie: It will, indeed. It is not an ideal solution for us. That is why we are —
Senator Dalphond: I don’t see it as ideal at all. It will be more secluded than if they were in Laval.
Mr. McCrorie: Absolutely. I don’t disagree.
I always say the vast majority of people who come to Canada are welcome and make a positive contribution. There is a very small number that ends up, for a variety of reasons, coming to our attention and who are inadmissible. Of this small number, there is even a smaller number who pose risk of physical violence, for example.
Senator Dalphond: What’s the plan in terms of agenda? Sorry to interrupt, but my time is running out. Is this going to be done this year, next year, in five years?
Mr. McCrorie: We need to have Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, Laval and Toronto finished by summer 2025 in order to start accepting high-risk detainees.
Where detention is a last resort, Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines will be the last resort of the last resorts and will only be for individuals who are deemed to be a high risk.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that, and the minister has to justify it.
Senator Pate: I think that Senator Dalphond knew exactly where I was going next.
As you know, you are moving to these plans with federal prisons. You have identified Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines. I am curious about where in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines? I know the facility fairly well.
You know there were many concerns raised by senators during a committee study about this practice. I’m curious as to what steps you are taking to evaluate and respond to the concerns that the Senate committee members raised, including some of those that Senator Dalphond has just raised.
Also, having been to both Laval and Surrey, it was clearly evident to me, having also been in many of the federal and provincial jails, that there was a capacity to fortify those units and it would take less work to fortify them than to start transferring everybody and then have to transfer them back. I’m curious as to whether there is a plan afoot there.
I would also like IRB to comment. When I was in those facilities, there were brand-new rooms that were built to the specificity of the IRB to hold hearings, and none of them have been used for hearings except for remote meetings. Even though they were built to the specifications of the IRB, all the hearings have been held remotely. I’m curious as to how that was justified in terms of a plan, both by the CBSA and IRB.
Perhaps you can start.
Mr. McCrorie: If I may, if I could clarify, earlier I said I wasn’t sure if we could collect the data on individuals who were formerly in the care of the state. I can confirm that we are not able to track that data. Our systems don’t have data fields to track that. I wanted to confirm that for you.
In terms of our facilities in Surrey, Toronto and Laval, each have particular challenges in terms of fortifying them. That is what our plan — by the way, fortifying portions of them.
If you look at Laval, for example, it was designed deliberately not to take on aspects of a prison. It was designed to be more open. They are not locked in the way that they need to be for a higher-risk individual.
In Laval’s facility, we need to install new, locking doors in a particular way, and that’s taking time. It is taking time to get the doors. It is taking time to get the contractor into the facility to install the doors. That work is well under way.
I stand to be corrected, but we’re aiming to have capacity for about 50 people in Laval. In Toronto, we are going to do something similar. There is a logistical challenge to doing so, and that is taking time.
Our estimation in terms of what our actual capacity is, we only have about 21 people in a provincial facility right now. I would suggest this underestimates what our actual need is.
Our actual need is given based on past practice and based on what we have seen. We probably need space for at least 100 individuals. That’s why we need to do these renovations in Montréal and Toronto.
We’ll look at Surrey later. Surrey is more complicated. You are right. There is work that can be done there. It probably involves doing work on the third floor, which is an attic. Doing that is not as simple as it seems. Again, that is a potential option moving forward.
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines in particular, we’re starting the work with Correctional Service Canada now. It is the reception centre. If you are coming in the front door, if you have been there, it is off to the right. There is a long corridor that leads down to two wings of cells. That’s the space we would be utilizing, looking to have a separate entrance so we could bring people in, and not through the CSC’s facility, to truly keep it as a separate operating facility.
Senator Pate: On Senator Dalphond’s point, the Laval facility is on the property of the Correctional Service Canada. Is there a reason you didn’t look at Laval? It has the very same kind of secure units.
Mr. McCrorie: Part of the challenge is — I can’t speak for Correctional Service Canada, but they are facing, as I understand it, significant capacity issues as well. So they have been looking for where they might have the capacity that we could use. There was nothing they identified in the Montréal area, and they looked across the country, and this is what they were able to find for us. It is not ideal. We had looked at other options like Portage la Prairie. We looked at facilities in Bowden, Alberta. We looked quite extensively. Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines is not great for proximity to where people are located, but it is better than Portage la Prairie, for example.
We didn’t have a lot of time to adjust, and we’re doing the best we can under the circumstances. Again, I think first getting Laval and Toronto, building the capacity there is our number one priority. We think we’ll need the capacity in Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines, but it will be limited use if we can get our other facilities up and running as well.
Ms. Eatrides: Sorry, I’m on the refugee side. But are you referring to the Laval facility that has the —
Senator Pate: Yes. Special courtrooms were built in both facilities at their request and the specifications of the IRB is what we were advised. Neither of them have been used except for video appearances.
Ms. Eatrides: We have a practice notice for the IRB where detainees can request an in-person hearing or to have it virtually. I would have to get back to you with the use of that hearing room, but that might explain part of it that they are requesting just a virtual hearing.
Senator Ross: Another question for IRCC. In the Departmental Plan, it states that IRCC is adopting a recognized institutions framework that qualifying post-secondary designated learning institutions, or DLIs, and those that achieve higher standards will benefit from faster processing. It has been brought to my attention that in New Brunswick, some of the DLIs have followed the rules, chosen students and accepted them and yet they didn’t get their study permits in time to start the school year. So they lost these qualified students and they couldn’t fill the slots, which they have fewer slots than they have had in the past as well. Can you speak to that?
Ms. Manseau: We’ll take the question with us and make sure that we provide you with a complete answer.
Senator Ross: I’ll add a bit to it, then. Just wondering where the framework is at. I’m also wondering if the department is going to publicize which institutions achieve or don’t achieve the higher standards, because that might make a difference for students that are applying. They might want to apply to those that are at the higher standard level so that they can have a faster processing time. What does that mean? What does higher standards mean, if they are a designated learning institution already?
I guess I’m wondering what the impact would be on students. If you can give me a sense of students who have been accepted, making their plans, and then because we have kind of let them down on the delivery of their documentation, they haven’t been able to come to school. So if you could include all of that.
I guess another one — a follow-up from our June 19 meeting. It was mentioned in the written response that we received that the next part of the Digital Platform Modernization program, or DPM, would be procuring a new back-end processing system. Contracts are going to be awarded in the summer or fall, which would be now I guess, on a new case processing system and system integration. I’m wondering if that has happened?
Ms. Manseau: Great timing for your question. The contracts were awarded this week, and three contracts were awarded.
Senator Ross: Excellent. Thank you. I have a question for CBSA. I’m not sure if this is a question you’ll be able to answer for me. But I am wondering what work the department is doing to prepare for the potential implementation of Bill C-20. Are financial commitments or financial plans or preparations made in these Main Estimates for the types of impacts that will happen with HR, compliance and all the things that will come along with that bill?
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. The government did invest $112 million over six years, and $19 million ongoing, to support the establishment of the public complaints and review commission. The CBSA is to receive $23.6 million over six years and $4.9 million ongoing. We do have the funds to put in place. It is something we are actively monitoring, pursuing, managing and getting ready for. There are funds set aside to implement, yes.
Senator Ross: Thank you very much.
Senator Kingston: I have more questions for Ms. Manseau. I’m just wondering what the budget of the Interim Federal Health Program, or IFH, is for 2024-25?
Ms. Manseau: I have that number with me. The total funding in 2024-25 is $557 million.
Senator Kingston: A relatively small amount, then. My second question is: are the RNs that we talked about that are assigned to the asylum hotels or whatever, is the money to pay them taken out of the Interim Federal Health Program funding?
Ms. Manseau: No, they are not. It is taken out of the funding that we receive for the interim accommodations — the interim lodging sites.
Senator Kingston: So that’s all in a bundle?
Ms. Manseau: Yes.
Senator Kingston: Okay. Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We’ll even have time for a third round of questions.
I have a question. Mr. Pilgrim, we learned this summer that the digital tool designed to modernize the collection of duties and taxes on commercial goods was facing major issues, both in terms of budgets and missed deadlines. You can understand why we’re a bit on edge, given our experience with the Phoenix pay system.
According to La Presse, the authorized budget for the project was $706.5 million, while the projected budget was $408 million. Where do things stand with this project?
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you for your question, Mr. Chair. I’ll pick up from my last answer.
[English]
The funding announced for Bill C-20 was announced in the budget — it’s in the fiscal framework but we haven’t accessed this funding. To come. It is money that was announced in the budget but is not in our bank account yet.
But to your question, the CBSA Assessment and Revenue Management, or CARM, system is supposed to come online October 21, so we’re all very anxious and excited for its implementation. It replaces a 36-year-old system used to assess and collect over $40 billion in duties per year. The CBSA is the second-largest revenue agency in the federal government after the CRA. This is a system that has been in the works for a long time, as you mentioned. We have spent, up to December 31, 2023, $438.4 million on the development and $118.4 million on maintenance, because there have been certain rounds of implementation already.
Ninety thousand importers, approximately, which represent approximately 95% of the volume of all commercial goods imported in Canada have already registered. There has been a significant amount of training, readiness and testing. So on October 21, it does go live as the official system of record. It has been implemented already internally since May, and it is working well. We’re doing a significant amount of testing as well. We have had that luxury of implementing it internally.
It goes live in October, and it should be good for Canada. We have — as shown — spent a lot of time, energy and money making sure that it goes right, because it is important for importers, ourselves and the government coffers to make sure it is done properly.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: So everything was pre-tested to ensure that we wouldn’t face the types of issues seen with Phoenix and other systems?
[English]
Mr. Pilgrim: No. I mean, we have done 7,600 test cases, multiple test cycles, CARM Experience Simulations. We learned our lesson — the Canadian government — from the Phoenix pay system, so we do not want that to happen here. There has been an abundance of testing and retesting with our partners and internally with our supporters to make sure this goes well. Will there be glitches? Possibly. But we have a system in place of support for our clients, and importers to make sure that the opening period goes well.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: We trust you. Since we see you every year, we’ll be talking to you next year.
Mr. Pilgrim: That’s right.
The Deputy Chair: There’s still time for a third round of questions and answers.
[English]
Senator Marshall: I have a question for Ms. Manseau, if she can answer it, on the funding. You lost almost a million dollars last year. Why was that? Was there a specific program that didn’t get off the ground?
Ms. Manseau: I apologize, I don’t have the detailed numbers with me, but there is a portion of that amount that we can carry over to the following fiscal year — the current fiscal year — which we have done. A portion for DPM and just general operating, so not the full amount was returned to the fiscal framework.
Senator Marshall: I’m asking the question because it’s quite substantial. Out of your budget of $4 million, there was almost $1 million that lapsed.
Ms. Manseau: Our total budget —
Senator Marshall: Nothing comes to your mind about a specific program, or maybe it was across the board?
Ms. Manseau: It was across the board, but like I said, there is a portion that we are allowed to carry forward into the current fiscal year.
Senator Marshall: I saw that, but it was still a significant lapse.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: My question is for the CBSA officials. We have the Main Estimates. However, a number of things have happened since then, including in July, when the collective agreement was renewed.
Can you talk a bit about it and provide details? What impact will this have? There will probably be supplementary estimates.
As we speak, the Main Estimates show a net decrease of 6% compared with last year. When we compare apples to apples, I don’t think that we’ll end up with 6% less for the current year. Can you clarify the financial impact?
Mr. Pilgrim: Yes. Thank you for the question.
[English]
In the Main Estimates, we have $42.6 million for the previous collective agreements for the PA and so on and so forth. Those are closed and in our Main Estimates.
For the recent FB collective agreements — the border officers — they got an increase of 14.8% over four years. This money is not yet in our account. It was signed on August 8, and the government has 180 days to ensure the pay is adjusted and people are paid at the new level with the $2500 pensionable lump sum and so on. The money is not yet in our account. It goes first to the Treasury Board then to us, likely in Supplementary Estimates (B) or (C). We are expecting the money. It will be a sizable amount of money, probably $332 million with the back pay from previous years.
[Translation]
Senator Gignac: Right, because there’s a lump sum of $2,500. So the amount is $300 million or so?
Mr. Pilgrim: We expect to receive approximately $332 million for 2022-23, 2023-24 and 2024-25, because retroactive payments will be made for previous years.
Senator Gignac: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Smith: This is a question for Ms. Manseau, Ms. Wang and Mr. Pilgrim. It’s a simple question, but if you want to, you could write us an answer.
What is the biggest challenge that each of you faces in your department, and how are you going to overcome the challenge during this fiscal year coming up? That’s a tough one. A quick response. If you could write it, I would like to see a paragraph. Just write us a short note. Not a big paper, but write us a one‑pager. Because it seems as if there are close interrelationships between the various departments, and I’m wondering about bumping, I’m wondering about efficiencies, and I’m wondering about whether there is a path within each of your departments that poses a major problem or issue that you can work on in order to come to some successful completion that is going to help the efficiency of the total operation.
Mr. Pilgrim: Thank you.
Senator Smith: Could you do that?
Mr. Pilgrim: With pleasure, yes.
Senator Smith: Thank you so much.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: You’re generous this evening, Mr. Deputy Chair.
[English]
My question is for the border security agency. In 2017, we amended the Customs Act to try to check the incoming mail, especially letters of 30 grams and less. The intent was to stop fentanyl being brought into Canada through the mail, because a small quantity can be put in a small envelope and it costs about $2 or $3 to ship it to Canada.
Your officers were authorized to open these letters and to screen for it. Do you have — if not, you can send a note to the committee — anything about the success rate? What has been happening after we passed that amendment in 2017? What are the results?
Mr. Pilgrim: We’ll have to come back with that data.
Senator Dalphond: I understand that you don’t have that at your fingertips, but my question is very specific. It’s the consequence of the amendment in 2017 allowing you to open the letters of 330 grams and less. Thank you.
How do you do it? I don’t think you take the risk of opening it. If it’s fentanyl, it can kill the opener. I guess you must have some techniques or some machines to do it, or you do it at random, you just pick and choose one in 1,000? I don’t know. I would like more explanation about what we have achieved and how we achieve it.
Mr. Pilgrim: Perfect. We’re happy to get back to you.
Senator Pate: I wanted to come back with CBSA and IRCC about this whole issue of a change in policy in September 2023 about temporary residents permits for former children in the care of the state and if I could have any information about how you’re tracking that. I understand you’re saying that you don’t have the numbers, but given that it’s a change in policy that was generated by concerns being raised that this was happening, how is that being monitored? Presumably, you want to know if the policy is affective in changing what was becoming a problematic practice.
Mr. McCrorie: From a CBSA point of view, it’s an IRCC policy that has the effect, if someone gets the temporary resident permit, of stopping the removal. Unfortunately, our systems aren’t set up to say that this individual who was subject to be removed — our system won’t capture the fact that this person had formerly been a child in care.
Senator Pate: I’m presuming something gets entered in the file that would be seen. If it means that everybody who was in care is not being sent to CBSA, that would be useful information to know as well.
Ms. Panagakos: We don’t have them readily. I’m happy to look into it. There may be possibilities where we’re coding in our system to be able to track these. We’re happy to look into it and get back to you.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
[Translation]
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. To wrap up this evening, I have a question that may be a bit difficult for Ms. Eatrides. If a young Haitian arrives in Toronto and wants to receive service in French, does this increase the processing time for the file?
Ms. Eatrides: No. Not at all. We have bilingual members in the central areas. Two teams of members in Toronto are completely bilingual.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Now that we have reached the end of our time, we will conclude our meeting. I would like to thank you for appearing today. It is much appreciated.
[Translation]
Thank you. I want to remind the witnesses to send their written responses to the clerk by the end of the day on Wednesday, October 9, 2024.
I want to remind the senators that our next meeting will take place on October 1, at 9 a.m., to continue our study of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2025.
Before closing the meeting, I want to express my gratitude for the hard work and professionalism of the committee’s support team, which helped us to hold this meeting so efficiently.
Thank you and good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)