HANSARD
Printed and Published by Nova Scotia Hansard Reporting Services
Ms. Maureen MacDonald (Chair)
Mr.Chuck Porter (Vice-Chairman)
Mr. Patrick Dunn
Mr. Keith Bain
Mr. Graham Steele
Mr. David Wilson (Sackville-Cobequid)
Mr. Keith Colwell
Mr. Leo Glavine
Ms. Diana Whalen
[Mr. Leonard Preyra replaced Mr. David Wilson]
WITNESSES
Office of Immigration
Ms. Rosalind Penfound
Deputy Minister
Ms. Elizabeth Mills
Executive Director
Ms. Frances Wolfe
Senior Nominee Officer
Department of Economic Development
Ms. Carole Lee Reinhardt
Corporate Strategist
Department of Justice
Mr. John Traves
Director of Legal Services
In Attendance:
Ms. Charlene Rice
Legislative Committee Clerk
Mr. Jacques Lapointe
Auditor General
Ms. Evangeline Colman-Sadd
Assistant Auditor General
Mr. Gordon Hebb
Chief Legislative Counsel
Mr. Neil Ferguson
Legislative Counsel
[Page 1]
HALIFAX, WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 28, 2007
STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
9:00 A.M.
CHAIR
Ms. Maureen MacDonald
VICE-CHAIRMAN
Mr. Chuck Porter
MADAM CHAIR: Good morning. I would like to call the committee to order, please. Today we have the Office of Immigration, with a focus on the Provincial Nominee Program. We have witnesses from the Office of Immigration and we have a representative from the Department of Economic Development as well.
I would like to set a few ground rules before we begin. We have been receiving a huge amount of documentation. The subcommittee has gone through some of the documentation in an in camera session and, at that time, made a decision to hear from the Office of Immigration with respect to their views around documents that they felt should be dealt with in camera. You will have received a memo from them on the way they classified documents in their considerations with respect to their requests to us.
Having considered their request, their approach, and having had the discussion, it was the feeling of the majority of the subcommittee members that much of the documentation we were being asked to deal with in camera, in fact could be dealt with in an open forum, but we did agree that we would attempt to protect the privacy of individuals, for example, individual nominees who have not given their permission to us to use their names, that does not prohibit members from speaking about individual situations where we have been in contact with the individual and, with their knowledge, their information may be used. So I just ask the members to be mindful of that.
[Page 2]
We also have the option of going in camera at any point, but really toward the end of this hearing, if we wanted, to deal with any matters that you want to raise around individual situations, for example, that you found in the documents where we still have not been able to acquire consent from individuals. So keep that in mind.
With that, I would like to proceed in our usual way by having introductions from members of the committee, the staff of the Auditor General's Office, and our witnesses who are here today. I would remind people that until your red light is on, your microphone will not pick you up for the recording system here. So we will begin with introductions.
[The committee members and staff introduced themselves.]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. We will now begin in the usual manner and I would ask the deputy minister to make opening comments, please.
MS. ROSALIND PENFOUND: Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members. In recent weeks the Office of Immigration has provided thousands of documents to the committee involving the Nova Scotia Nominee Program and the Office of Immigration. Additional information continues to be assembled for you, and this information is being bundled and delivered to Public Accounts as quickly as humanly possible. A timeline of responsibilities and key operational changes, which predates the establishment of the program through to the present day, has been distributed to you this morning. We hope this will aid your understanding of key program events and responsibilities.
With the committee's indulgence, I will take just a few minutes to provide an overview of the province's role in immigration by way of the Nominee Program. To understand the context in which the Nominee Program was developed, it is necessary to return to the province's economic strategy, Opportunities for Prosperity, launched in October 2000.
That document committed the province to a more focused effort on immigration as a means of helping to alleviate growing concerns over Nova Scotia's labour supply. A potential avenue for increasing this focus was an agreement with the federal government to create a provincial Nominee Program. Although there was increasingly widespread interest at this time in advancing the immigration efforts of the province, this did not translate into significant resources with which to address the issues. Given that the government's number one priority was to successfully balance the provincial budget, a successful program had to be a self-supporting one.
In early 2001, government authorized the development of a Nominee Program. An agreement with the federal government followed in August 2002. During this time period, Economic Development, the department initially responsible for the program, was focused
[Page 3]
on developing the details and seeking a private sector partner to deliver the program on the province's behalf.
Economic Development received three unsolicited proposals from private sector organizations, one of which was subsequently withdrawn. After a detailed assessment of the proposals, Cornwallis Financial Corporation was selected as the only one which met the program criteria. A contract with the company was signed in December 2002.
Much has been said about the province's untendered contract with Cornwallis. In reality, provincial staff were directed by Executive Council to tender this contract. During the time between this instruction and the assignment of the contract, the department, using more than a decade's worth of experience in the local immigration industry, did a thorough evaluation of the unsolicited proposals before awarding the contract by way of an alternative procurement process. Staff of the department honestly believed that they were making the best recommendation given the selection criteria and the urgency to begin a program. Regardless, while unintentional, not following a directive of the Executive Council was inappropriate.
Madam Chair, committee members, the Nova Scotia Nominee Program became operational in June 2003 and the first nominees began arriving the following year. An increased focus on the potential of immigration as a source of skilled labour led to the development of the province's first immigration strategy. This strategy was launched in January 2005 and the first Minister of Immigration was appointed.
As a result of the strategy, the Office of Immigration was established and became the principal agency responsible for immigration policy from that point forward. The Nova Scotia Nominee Program currently has five categories - the economic stream is one. It is this stream and this business mentorship component that have been the subject of much attention and debate.
In 2002, research showed that one of the biggest barriers to immigration was that newcomers could not get a foot in the door of local companies - not surprisingly, access to meaningful employment is a critical factor in an individual's decision to stay or leave an area. As committee members will appreciate, attracting new immigrants to our province is vital, and encouraging them to stay here even more so.
While the federal government had concerns that the economic stream would compete with federal investor programs, the province believed that there was merit in providing an avenue for newcomers to gain that all-important exposure to the Canadian workplace. Such exposure could increase a newcomer's local network and his or her opportunities for securing long-term employment or starting a business. As it was a pilot, the stream could be later adjusted or changed if need be.
[Page 4]
Madam Chair and committee members, it takes time to set up an office and recruit qualified staff who can carry out the mandate - and most of 2005 was spent doing just that. It was April 1st before the office received responsibility for the Nominee Program and January the following year before the total staff complement was in place. It also took time to gain an appreciation for the issues. In 2005 there were 34 business matches. It would be months before nominees themselves were in a position to identify concerns to us.
As we received information about potential issues, we forwarded our concerns to Cornwallis; we understood that these concerns were addressed. During that same period we also received indications from nominees and businesses alike of successful mentorships. Still we took steps to improve accountability - we secured joint signing authority on the trust account, published the list of business mentors on our Web site, and issued an RFP to conduct an independent fee review.
[9:15 a.m.]
On July 1, 2006, when we assumed full operational responsibility for the program, we immediately stopped accepting new applications for the economic stream, yet we still had to recruit business mentors to meet the program's obligations to nominees who were already in the queue. It was in the following months, through conversations with nominees and business mentors and other stakeholders that staff became increasingly concerned by the stories they were hearing, stories of second- and third-hand accounts of financial arrangements, not based on bona fide employment, facilitated by third-party brokers and agents.
Much of what we were hearing was anecdotal and, when followed up by staff, could not always be verified. There are six instances in which we have had sufficient information to withhold the second instalment, and in one of those cases it was because the company had stopped operating.
Since September 2006, the Office of Immigration has introduced approximately 25 measures to improve the program. I won't go through them all, but among them a few of significance: new policies that excluded immigration brokers and agents from being able to apply as business mentors; the elimination of business application fees; making mandatory an in-person meeting with both the business mentor and the nominee to confirm the employment relationship prior to any contract signing and issuance of the first payment to the company; sending second payments to business mentors only after confirmation was received from both the nominee and the company that the employment contract was successfully completed - as of December 2006 this confirmation had to be in writing; preventing companies from having more than one nominee match at one time or from starting a second mentorship until a year had passed from the conclusion of the previous match; the same shareholders can no longer have concurrent or consecutive applications.
[Page 5]
Despite these measures, by May 2007 we concluded that the business mentor component was not always meeting program objectives, making it necessary to develop an alternative. In response, the residency refund option was developed, approved, and introduced to provide nominees who had not yet signed an employment contract with another option. In the new year we intend to introduce an entrepreneur stream to replace the entire economic category.
While there have been questions as to why it took the office as long as it did to introduce measures, the reality is that we could not make significant policy changes without sufficient information. I've explained some of the administrative timelines - it also took a few months following the office's assumption of the program to receive files and accounting records from Cornwallis.
Despite these concerns it is imperative that the issues be put into perspective. More than 800 individuals and their families are arriving in Nova Scotia as a result of this economic stream - a number of them have benefited from the opportunities that business mentorships with local companies provided and still others, today, others who are fully aware of the options available to them, are choosing the business mentorship component.
Since 2002, immigration numbers in our province have almost doubled. Last year alone the province welcomed more than 2,500 immigrants - an outstanding increase of 34 per cent over 2005, and a 75 per cent increase since the Nominee Program's implementation in 2003.
These newcomers are helping to address the labour market needs of our companies, grow our economy, and add diversity to our communities. Our skilled worker category continues to grow in popularity. Last year 33 individuals were nominated by the province to the federal government for permanent residency; this year we have already nominated more than 100. Two new streams have been added - the family business worker and international graduate categories are a direct response to what we heard during consultation sessions . . .
MADAM CHAIR: Order. I would ask if you could bring it to an end so we can begin our questions. Thank you.
MS. PENFOUND: One more minute. We've honoured government's commitment to develop these new streams. Thanks to our immigration agreement, which includes a new Nominee Program, we're no longer constrained by a numeric limit, and so far this year have nominated 388 individuals. Our new co-operation agreement on immigration builds on what has been an effective partnership with the federal government.
Madam Chair, and committee members, thank you for giving me the opportunity to make opening remarks, and now to your questions.
[Page 6]
MADAM CHAIR: The opening round will be 20 minutes per caucus and we will begin with the NDP caucus.
Mr. Preyra.
MR. LEONARD PREYRA: Madam Chair, before I begin, I would like to draw your attention, with your indulgence, to the presence in the west gallery of students from the Armbrae Academy and their teachers John Stone, Robert Chambers and Jamie Langille.
Thank you very much for that very broad survey of the context in which immigration policy is made. As you know, we are particularly interested today in the economic stream and the business mentorship stream. Part of that context, at the time, also is that this program - this untendered, unsolicited, sole-source contract to Cornwallis - was given for reasons other than reasons that serve the public interest. We have to look at that context as well. I understand that there are a number of procedures underway relating to that contract. Our interest here today is principally in the process that led to the awarding of that contract and the responsibility of political people for the awarding of that contract.
I appreciate very much senior members of the bureaucracy being here. I understand that they function in a context where political decisions were made and they were working within that framework and we have you here today largely to provide the background, largely because you really represent the institutional memory for us of that program itself.
I would like to begin by referring to the August 27, 2002 agreement - the federal-provincial Nominee Agreement that was signed with Denis Coderre, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, at the time, and Cecil Clarke, the Minister of Economic Development. It was signed on October 27, 2002. As part of that agreement, Nova Scotia was supposed to provide a recruitment plan. Subsequent to that, the Nova Scotia Government signed an agreement with Cornwallis on December 9, 2002, and I would like to know more about the background to that agreement - the context, if you wish.
We have received thousands of documents relating to this and I am particularly intrigued by the way in which this contract was arrived at. We received this unsolicited contract in 2000, which was years before the federal-provincial Nominee Agreement was signed, in fact the enabling legislation. On November 8, 2001, for example, the Department of Economic Development sent a note to the Department of Public Works that says: We are currently near completion on negotiations with the federal Citizenship and Immigration Department for a nearly established Provincial Nominee Agreement. As such it would be more cost efficient, both for budget and staffing purposes, to out-source the promotion of the program to potential immigrants overseas. This is several months before the actual Provincial Nominee Agreement is signed.
[Page 7]
The day after the Provincial Nominee Agreement is signed, another letter goes forward to the deputy minister and to the minister saying that there is some urgency to this matter that this unsolicited contract be, in fact, endorsed - we don't need to look at the documents. Shortly after that, it was agreed that there would be a sole-source approach taken to this contract and the minister agreed to it. My question is, why the urgency? Why was this contract, in fact, agreed to before the federal-provincial Nominee Agreement itself was signed?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Madam Chair, I guess by way of general comment, I would say that it is not uncommon for federal and provincial officials to talk back and forth, for us to be aware of what plans are unfolding with regard to programs and regulations and although I don't speak specifically to this instance, it would not be unusual for officials to be talking back and forth and understand and be preparing for what might come.
With respect to the circumstances surrounding the letting of the contract, I mentioned it in my opening remarks because it is a point of clear interest as raised by the subcommittee last week. You indicated that it would be one of the main issues you wish to address. I would, however, have to say at this point that the contract was let when this program was the responsibility of the Department of Economic Development and none of us here from the Office of Immigration - particularly myself - can comment with respect to the circumstances surrounding the letting of that contract.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you very much for that answer. I'm looking at Appendix A of the contract with Cornwallis. Appendix A for year one says from August 2002 to December 2002. This refers to a period before the contract came into place. It suggests this contract was signed before December 9th, before the federal-provincial Nominee Agreement came into force. I wonder if some of the others who were present at the creation - Frances Wolfe and -I've forgotten your name - you were both present at the time. I wonder if you could comment if in fact this is what happened, this contract was not signed after the period when the government claims it was?
MS. CAROLE LEE REINHARDT: At the time the contract was signed, unfortunately, that pre-dates my involvement with the file. I can speak to what happened after that point in time, but not up to that particular process.
MR. PREYRA: I ask you this question because there is a question of fairness. As you know, although this bid was unsolicited, which was an issue in itself, the other unsolicited bidder complained that this in fact was a bit of a railroad, that there was insider information, that there was no chance that they were given to bid on this contract. They complained to the Office of Economic Development and the complaint was dismissed.
[Page 8]
If you look at the documents, you can see some merit to that. In fact, there was no bidding process and there was no opportunity given to bidders. In fact, that process was approved by the minister on August 10, 2002, the records confirm that.
I have a question about a recent statement that the minister made about that period. In a Daily News article, Justice Minister Cecil Clarke, who was the Minister of Economic Development at the time, said, "There was a full market assessment that was part of that report, and recommendation that would have been brought forward by officials to myself. Qualifications were determined at that time."
Is that an accurate statement in your opinion, Ms. Penfound?
MS. PENFOUND: I'd have to say once again, I was not present at the time. The program was with Economic Development, I have no particular knowledge of, and can't speak to that.
MR. PREYRA: Well, perhaps I can speak to it because if we have all of the documents that you have given us - and I believe that you have - there is no record of a full market assessment being done and recommendations being brought forward or qualifications being determined. Would that be an accurate statement? Has anyone else in this body seen that full market assessment? No.
MS. FRANCES WOLFE: There was an assessment, but there were certain key elements we were looking for from our contracts, one of them being that the company was Nova Scotia-based, that it had worldwide connections already established so it could do the marketing and that there would be an exclusivity to the province. This was put forward to the other person putting a bid in and they were not willing to be exclusive.
MR. PREYRA: There's some debate about that. I don't doubt that there were criteria established for this. What I am asking is whether or not a full market assessment was done and that the record shows there was no full market assessment done. In fact, the only two people who were apparently involved in this process were the two unsolicited bidders.
I do want to ask about the recommendation that went before the minister and before Cabinet. As I was saying earlier, this decision to go with the alternative procurement route - in other words to not go to tender, to not go to open bidding - was made very early on. It was made almost a year before, in fact, before the contract was signed. At least at first blush, for someone who is not that familiar with procurement practices, it doesn't appear this contract met the criteria that was set out in the alternative procurement arrangement. For example, I look at the value of the contract, supposed to declare what's this contract worth. It says "NA" - I assume it means not applicable, but the contract was worth $100 million and it was given off, it was untendered. "Bids Received" - the answer is "unsolicited proposals".
[Page 9]
[9:30 a.m.]
It seems to me that it's an awfully sloppy way to handle $100 million. This is a decision that was made by the minister and made by the Cabinet and I'm not disagreeing that the criteria was there. My point is, no one else in the community knew what the criteria was. In fact, this contract was signed within days of the Nominee Agreement being signed, before it was even publicized that the contract was available. In fact, the federal-provincial agreement set the numbers of nominees, set the recruitment, set the criteria itself. So it should have been put out.
So when the minister says there was a full market assessment, it is not completely accurate in any sense of the word, other than criteria were there.
I also want to say a little bit more about the agreement itself. It appears that the agreement was negotiated in three stages. Part of it, as I said, was done before December 9th, Appendix A, but Appendix B appears to have been done sometime before January 15th. It was almost as if this contract was being made up during the holiday season.
I ask that because in large part, many of the problems that the department had with Cornwallis later on stemmed from the fact that this contract was negotiated with very little ministerial oversight. Is that a fair representation, Madam Penfound?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: I hate to sound like a broken record but I was not the deputy minister, nor was I employed in that department. Earlier this week, I did write to the Chair of the committee, indicating that senior officials in the Department of Economic Development had offered to come and appear today, to be able to answer questions about that time period, and it may be the committee's choice to pose those questions to them at a later date.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you. I think we will be asking people to comment on this at a later date. I want to go back to the question about criteria. At the time, Cornwallis was presented as the only qualified company to bid for this, but Cornwallis at the time had no experience at all with recruiting business mentors and certainly subsequent developments showed that it didn't.
Cornwallis had no immigration agents on its staff, all of this was contracted. Cornwallis, in fact, was a venture capital company. To what extent did this information go forward from the deputy minister to the minister? Was the department aware of Cornwallis' qualifications for this contract?
[Page 10]
MS. PENFOUND: I can't speak to what the Department of Economic Development was or wasn't aware of during that time period.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Wolfe.
MS. WOLFE: I'd like to speak to that a bit. I had been working in the provincial government with immigration for about 12 years by this time and was well aware of who the players were in the immigration field in Nova Scotia and outside of Nova Scotia. Cornwallis Financial did, indeed, manage several immigrant investor funds successfully, without any issues, as communicated to me by the federal government. He is also involved in a fair number of small businesses so he would have, we would perceive, a fairly good business network.
MR. PREYRA: Do you mean Stephen Lockyer, when you say . . .
MS. WOLFE: Yes.
MR. PREYRA: I want to move on to talk about the business mentorship part of the agreement. The agreement was signed in December 2002. In March 2005, we sent a request to the Office of Immigration for information about the mentorship program and about businesses that have been approved to take part in the economic stream program. On February 28, 2005, 11 businesses had been approved to participate in the economic stream and three approved businesses that have nominee matches.
So in 2005 - an agreement was signed in December 2002 - three businesses had been approved; 109 applications had been received and approved at that time. So when we talk about the success rate of recruiting business mentors, and during this period we see lots of documentation with Cornwallis begging the Office of Immigration for support from the department because they had no clue about how to recruit business mentors. The department was aware of this and what steps did the department do, what steps did the minister take to correct this?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Madam Chair, Mr. Preyra, as you know, the contract with Cornwallis was signed in December 2002 and by April 2005 the Office of Immigration was established and became responsible for that program. Prior to that it was with Economic Development, of course. It did take us some time to establish staff in an office and a number of things occurred over the ensuing months as the office was established in terms of oversight. We established joint signing authority on the trust account. We joined the selection committee which approved business mentor companies. We published a list of business mentors on our Web site. We issued an RFP for a fee review in December 2005 . . .
[Page 11]
MR. PREYRA: Sorry, I know you're reciting everything the department did at the time but I really had a much more specific question about business mentors. I ask this because one thing the department did - it was approved by the minister - was to require immigrants to take their placements in these business mentor arrangements within 12 months. My question is, if you've got a very, very small list of business mentors and a fast growing list of nominees - 800 to date - how is it possible for those mentorships to occur?
If we go through the documentation in 2005 - and I know you said the information started to trickle in about the nominee complaints, but really there were a flood of complaints during that period. I have talked with maybe 30 or 40 of the nominees who have told me that they drew it to the attention of the department long before that there were not enough mentors in the program, that in fact the mentorships that were being offered were meaningless. Later on, and not in this session, I think I would like to look at the question of the refund and why it came about.
In fact, I talked with senior representatives of the business community about the mentorship program and I asked them why reputable businesses were not involved, why there was such a small buy-in. They said they felt uncomfortable with the Nominee Program. One of them said, it felt like I was giving $10 and getting $100 in change. It's the feeling you get when you're in front of a cashier and that happens - they said this is just plain wrong. They said, we had this icky feeling about it and that's why our business community didn't get involved and the record shows that there were a number of complaints like that about the Nominee Program.
I would like to ask what steps the Office of Immigration and the minister took at that time and you referred to the immigration strategy itself. In January 2005, we had this widespread consultation with hundreds of stakeholders, a very comprehensive report, and as part of the report, the report made a recommendation that eventually became part of the immigration strategy. The participants felt it would be better to allow the applicants to use the $100,000 as capital. Businesses noted that the guidelines were not really being met. Comments on the streams centre on accountability. It was suggested that close monitoring and follow-up with businesses are essential to ensure that the arrangement is beneficial to both the business and the immigrant. A complete revision of the economic Nominee Program was suggested.
This was in January 2005, just before the new minister was appointed, Minister MacDonald, just when the Office of Immigration was created and right through 2005 we see not one initiative that's aimed at strengthening the accountability mechanism. In fact, the Office of Immigration had no financial officers. It was not able to read the auditor reports that were coming in. It had five staff - two of whom were part-time - when they were allotted 10. They did not have an office. My question is who was responsible at the time for responding to these recommendations? The minister signed off on it, so presumably the minister would have seen that and said we have to do something.
[Page 12]
MADAM CHAIR: Order. The member's time has expired.
I now recognize Ms. Whalen for the Liberal caucus. You have 20 minutes.
MS. DIANA WHALEN: As has already been said, there is a wealth and huge breadth of information before us so I fear that this morning maybe we will only be able to touch on some of it. I wanted to go, rather than to the earlier history of the Cornwallis contract and how we got to today, perhaps to the things that have happened in the last year or so.
I would like to speak about the decision of October 12th where the decision was made public to change the program. I believe that would have been something that was in the works for a little while as people would have had to be researching. We know that many problems were flagged. One of the documents we received was a briefing note from May 2007 which indicated a very good list of the problems that had come up and some of your concerns and suspicions around why it wasn't working and whether companies were, in fact, some of them not doing what they were supposed to do, sometimes the nominees not being engaged as they were supposed to be, et cetera.
What I would like to know is at what point the department decided that a major change would be coming?
MS. PENFOUND: Madam Chair, I am pleased to answer that question. Before I do, although I know the time from the previous question ran out, I feel compelled to state that I would not agree that all companies that agreed in our mentorship program were not reputable. I feel it is important to make that statement.
With respect to the question at hand - through the Fall of 2005 and the Winter of 2006, it became clear that the mentorship match might not be the best option for all of the people in the economic stream. Some weren't in Nova Scotia. Some had found employment or started their own business or bought a home. In other words, they were attaching to the community and learning the business and social culture on their own. Mentorships were working for some. We have written acknowledgment from people indicating that they had a good experience; 207 had signed contracts of employment and were bound to complete that. Their money was disbursed to employers. Their money was never in the public accounts. It was always in a trust fund and their money has been disbursed to employers.
Proof of residency - 12 months within an 18-month period seemed like the right test in terms of figuring out that someone had actually settled in Nova Scotia. (Interruption)
MADAM CHAIR: Order. Ms. Whalen.
MS. WHALEN: I'm sorry to interrupt, but that is answering some other questions. I really wanted to know not about the length of the term and that relates specifically, I
[Page 13]
believe, to recommendations that were coming from the federal government perhaps during that time. So I might ask you, how much were the concerns of the federal government influencing your concern, a sudden interest in making changes here in the province?
MS. PENFOUND: Ms. Mills may be able to add but I will start with this. We have had, and continue to have, an excellent relationship with our counterparts at Citizenship and Immigration Canada. You will know from documents you have seen and discussion, that there has been discussion about whether or not the economic stream amounted to passive investment. We were, at the time, and continue to discuss those issues with the federal government.
It was understood when we entered into our first Nominee Agreement with the federal government that this was a pilot. We met with them frequently and discussed this issue. They had indicated to us that there might, in fact, even be regulations that would come forward to address this issue. Those discussions continued and we were always mindful of their concerns but had never reached a point where we were advised that our program should not continue as a pilot and we felt we it had merit and that the purpose of a pilot is to see what can happen, see if it is successful. How could we continue?
MS. WHALEN: Yes, I wanted to go to the point about the pilot. That was a word that was used several times during the two-hour press conference that was held a few weeks ago and I would like to question or really probe that a little bit more because if you set up a pilot project within government - and I know all of you are career civil servants with excellent experience and background in government - a pilot project, any I've seen, have had a lot of criteria, from monitoring and control and follow-up and timelines in which things will be reassessed.
This is a program that was set in place in 2003 or so, with no follow-up from government. It was farmed out to a private company and the due diligence that you would expect to see, to see whether or not it was a success, was just missing. A primary example would be, were the nominees satisfied with the experience? Were they getting what they wanted, in terms of language and business mentorship, business experience, contacts and so on. That wasn't happening; by your earlier admissions there was no contact with those nominees during or at the end of a mentorship. So can you explain to me how we can call this a pilot?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
[9:45 a.m.]
MS. PENFOUND: I'm going to ask Ms. Mills if she would like to comment on it, given her experience when the program moved to the office.
[Page 14]
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. ELIZABETH MILLS: The original reference to pilot goes back to our agreement with the Government of Canada to do a Nominee Program. So the first agreement really was a five-year agreement that allowed Nova Scotia to initiate a Nominee Program as a pilot.
In our subsequent communications and relationship with Cornwallis, it was also presented as a pilot. There were regular quarterly reports presented to us by Cornwallis which documented what was happening under the program, the number of nominees and so on. There was regular communication and meetings and contacts between government and Cornwallis in which we discussed issues and looked at what was going to happen.
The end date of the pilot would have been a five year pilot and under our agreement with the Government of Canada, we were to do an evaluation of that pilot before going to a permanent agreement.
MS. WHALEN: Ms. Mills, would you consider that unusual not to have more accountability measures built into a pilot project?
MS. MILLS: I've worked with a lot of different pilots over the years and some are really new and exciting ideas and you don't really know what is going to fall out until the program evolves and measures are taken in place. In other cases, I've worked with pilots that have been very strict and heavily criteria'd. In this case, I think we needed - we knew for a fact there are lots of rules and regulations around immigration from a federal point of view. All of the indications we were receiving from other provinces, Manitoba and other nominee programs, is provide flexibility; take this concept and test it through and see how well it works and put measures in place as you go along, to deal with it and make improvements.
MS. WHALEN: Well, I would suggest that the pilot was too open and too flexible and it didn't have the oversight. The flexibility rested with Cornwallis and with agents overseas and with others who misrepresented the program.
I don't think that the control was there and although it isn't public money we were talking about, it is $130,000 belonging to individuals who put their trust in Nova Scotia and in Canada in making that move to this new country for them, and at great personal expense, as you know from interviewing many of them as they come through. People give up a lot; they give up their contacts and their homes. They leave their families, sometimes when their families are saying don't go, it's not a good idea, but despite that advice they've said no, I want this opportunity. So they've staked a great deal by coming here and we had a responsibility to ensure that they were getting value and that their rights were being protected and so on.
[Page 15]
So I think that there was a lack of oversight, which is very severe. On the number of people who have come in, it's my understanding that there are about 800, is that correct?
MS. MILLS: Under the economic category.
MS. WHALEN: And that's my category of interest, thank you, but 800 - about 200 or would it be 203 who have already been mentored or are in the process?
MS. MILLS: It's 207.
MS. WHALEN: That is a group that I'm particularly concerned about because as I see it, you made a decision that was announced October 12th, with government approval, that we would now have an option and the $600 that had not yet been matched to anybody would now have this option of maintaining their capital, Madam Chair, and going forward with their own business and their own activities as they would see fit if anybody were to choose a mentorship that was still going to be offered. I think it's quite questionable whether anybody would choose that option of handing over that amount of money with scarcely any payback to them.
The new options made available - 600 people, whether they're here or whether they have yet to arrive are happy, but you have over 200 people who have been shut out from this new option. My question in the time remaining, I'd like to look specifically at the 207 people.
I asked in my first question when you decided a major change would occur. It appears in the Fall of 2005, with correspondence from the federal government outlining they had concerns with the mentorship, that it wasn't providing enough value to immigrants. The correspondence indicates that they felt 80 per cent going to the company was too high and that it should be more money back to the nominee and also a longer time span of working with the company if this was going to be a program that would continue.
So, you had lots of signals that things were going to change or possibly a change could be forced on it. Given that, and given that there was a shortage of companies available to do these mentorships and you had up to 600 coming through the pipeline, you knew a change had to happen. I want to know when the decision was made that you couldn't accommodate the 600?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms Penfound.
If you would prefer, Ms. d'Entremont could speak to the question.
MS. PENFOUND: I'll speak to it first and she may be able to help. There actually were two decision points with respect to recognizing the need for different options or change.
[Page 16]
One was in July, 2006 when a decision was made to close the economic stream and not accept further applications.
Through the months after the Office of Immigration was established and we took over files and opened our database and began to understand what the situation was, how many people were in the queue, how many business matches there were, it became clearer to us that this might not be the best option for everybody. We started developing possibilities for how we might address this, focusing on the fact that we should be most interested in meeting the needs of nominees who are in the province. So, if there are people who have landed here and moved on to another part of Canada, those should not be our immediate concern, our concern should be with people who are here.
It was during that period in the early Spring when we began to consider all this information we were getting - much of it anecdotal. Often we would go and ask and have replies from nominees and businesses - in fact, some in writing - that their match was fine. So, it was through that period that we began to believe it was appropriate to consider another option.
Just one point of clarification, you indicated you didn't think anybody would now choose the mentorship program. We have at least two people since we announced the residency refund who have chosen that option, even though we've sat down with them and said, there's a choice for you. In the light of that advice, they have clearly decided they would like to do the mentorship option.
MS. WHALEN: I'm interested to hear that as well. It's surprising to me. It means really, though, beginning in 2006 when you made the decision to take on the program internally and in the Spring of 2007 when all of these issues were flagged in the briefing note and things were kind of coalescing, it was clear that an option was going to be made.
Sometime during that period, a rule change within the department that said you have only 12 months to make your match, possibly because you wanted to move people through more quickly because you had a big backlog of people arriving. But by setting a 12 month rule on that, you put pressure on the incoming immigrants, the ones that had just arrived, that wasn't there for the earlier people. I saw an earlier note that Cornwallis had advised you early on, don't push people, let them make the right match and let them get settled here and don't push them on the timeline.
There may have been some personal interest in leaving the money in the account for a longer period, however, you changed the rules or government changed the rules mid-stream here for new arrivals - 12 months was the deadline. People felt pressure and in that last 12 months, have been signing on to contracts, many of which are very inadequate, inappropriate matches. This has been going on right up until August and September - people beginning their matches.
[Page 17]
I'm really disturbed because I feel it was done in bad faith, pushing people to sign on the dotted line. The moment they put their signature on a contract with a company, they become ineligible to receive their money back. I wonder if you could comment on that decision to change it to the 12-month rule and to pressure people to sign contracts when you knew a major change was coming?
MS. PENFOUND: First off, I would say that none of the work that we've been doing on the program, I believe, has been done in bad faith. I think Ms. Mills may be able to comment on the 12-month option.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: Early on, nominees were indicating to us that they did want to start their mentorship very soon after arrival. You referenced correspondence and advice from Cornwallis that we allow time for them to settle, but what the nominees were saying was they wanted to start their lives fairly soon after arriving in Canada. One of the advantages for them to having the business mentor start early was because they could get credit, they could go to a bank and show a letter that they were employed by this company with an employment contract. We actually had pressure from nominees that they wanted to start work right away.
The reason for instituting the 12-month period was because we knew that there were a number of nominees who were not landing in Nova Scotia; they were landing in other provinces and in other cities. We wanted to put a time frame on when they were no longer eligible for that option to take advantage of the Business Mentor Program. We wanted to put some parameters around it - as you mentioned earlier, that parameter was not in place. I will assure you that we were very flexible with that 12 months. Whenever a nominee came to us and requested an extension, that extension was granted, so a lot of flexibility was introduced.
What we wanted to do was to say, okay, if you're not living in the province, there needs to be an end date whereby you're no longer eligible for this requirement.
MS. WHALEN: I can appreciate the need to determine who was here and who was going to ever receive the funds back, but I still feel it put pressure on newcomers. I think you would be well aware, as anybody who works with immigration knows, there is often a misunderstanding about what those rules mean. Flexibility is what you said was needed for immigrants and I'm not sure that setting a 12-month time frame was a good thing, because people felt compelled to sign and, in fact, I believe were pressured to sign contracts that were very inappropriate.
Again, going back to whether it is in good faith or not, if you knew that internally the policies were being debated and the option of keeping your money was going to be put on the table within two, three or even four months, why wasn't there a freeze on signing new mentorships or at least clear indication that this may change completely in a couple of months and you may be limiting your options by signing today?
[Page 18]
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Through that period of time, we were obviously considering a number of options. One of them would have been the status quo and there were other options being floated as well. Until a decision was made, we really couldn't be sure of what the change would be. So we felt to abandon the program that was already underway and not continue with it as established was not appropriate until we had direction that there would be a program change and that the options were considered and we had clear direction on where we were going.
MS. WHALEN: When the program was announced October 12th you had meetings with the existing nominees that are here that have yet to start the program, but no correspondence was initiated with the other 200 or perhaps 100 that are still here in Nova Scotia, to let them know of this change. Can you explain that?
MS. PENFOUND: You're referring to the people who had already signed their . . .
MS. WHALEN: The invitation to come to the meeting, the invitation to say come to the art gallery and we'll tell you about the new program?
MS. PENFOUND: The folks who were invited to come and hear about the new program would be those who were eligible to participate in it. Those who had already signed mentorship contracts and were in legally binding contractual situation of employment, the option was not available to them, so our view was it was most important to have the people who would be eligible and would have this choice informed about this option.
MS. WHALEN: The people who arrived in the beginning, the ones who came in the first two, three years of this program were really the ones that tested this program for you and played by the rules. The ones who still live here in Nova Scotia are the ones who followed all of the rules laid out, did their mentorship and are still living here. There would be a relationship with the department and I would question why they weren't invited simply so they would hear first-hand as a courtesy that changes were in the works, particularly those who have signed in the last month or two, to understand what had been done. I think the lack of communication left even a worse feeling about how they were being treated in Nova Scotia. So could you simply respond to that, please?
MS. PENFOUND: Certainly, in retrospect perhaps we could have done something differently. Again, our thinking was to be sure that we got information to the people who would be directly affected by this option and we certainly have heard from others, some who were at those meetings and in the aftermath - and hindsight is always 20/20.
[Page 19]
[10:00 a.m.]
MADAM CHAIR: Order, the time has now expired for the Liberal caucus. I recognize Mr. Porter for the PC caucus. You have 20 minutes, until 10:20 a.m.
MR. CHUCK PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the witnesses for being before us today and answering some questions with regard to this. At the same time, I want to again express, as I have in this committee in the past, the concern I have that we have only part of the information and it is going to be . . .
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: I can hear better if I can see Mr. Porter - could we move that chair?
MADAM CHAIR: Certainly.
MS. PENFOUND: Thank you. That's better, thank you.
MR. PORTER: As I was saying, thank you for coming today and appearing before us, but I am expressing some concerns - I have said in the past about the amount of information. We have a small piece, from what I can tell, of that information. Thousands of documents are yet to be reviewed; we have requested unanimously amongst this committee, the Auditor General to do a report. We have not waited for that to come forward. I believe there's a lot of information that we are missing and in order for things to be very transparent and to have all the information, I would very much again suggest it would have been important to gather all of that before we appeared here today. However, we're here and we'll continue on with some questions.
I'm going to jump right into the program and I'm going to ask where did the $130,000 that was paid by the nominees, where did that go?
MS. PENFOUND: I'll ask Ms. Mills to answer that.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: The $130,000 was deposited in the trust fund. At the point at which the nominee was nominated by the Nova Scotia Government, $30,000 was transferred from the trust fund to Cornwallis Financial account - $10,000 was for their file preparation fees and $20,000 was for immigration consultants who worked as subagents of Cornwallis. The $100,000 was held in the trust until the match happened between the nominee and the Nova Scotia business mentor, and it was paid out in two instalments of $50,000 each. The first instalment was paid at the point at which the contract was signed, and the second $50,000
[Page 20]
payment was made after the contract had been completed and both parties assured us that a bona fide employment contract had taken place.
MR. PORTER: Thank you. Why was this program, the Nova Scotia Nominee Program put in place to begin with?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Well the Nova Scotia Nominee Program was put in place under the federal government's economic category as a mechanism for this province - and others have the same opportunity - to nominate immigrants to come and be landed and become permanent residents of this province to help meet our labour market needs. The various streams that have been developed have been in response to our understanding of what the labour market needs might be and categories where there would be nominees with a particular interest in coming to Nova Scotia that would help meet our needs.
MR. PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Why did you introduce the economic stream, given the federal government's concerns? I know you spoke a little bit about that but I think you were cut off.
MS. PENFOUND: Ms. Mills can take that.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: Research was telling us that immigrants coming to Canada in the most recent 10 years were not doing as well economically as immigrants who had come before, and the main reason for that was that they were unable to find that first, all-important Canadian work experience. The evidence in Nova Scotia was that we had poor retention rates and, in fact, immigrants were surveyed after they had left the province as to why they left, and most indicated that they wanted to stay but their main reason was that they were unable to find meaningful employment in Nova Scotia, so they had to leave for other areas where there were more opportunities that they perceived.
At the time it was felt that it would be important to provide that first employment opportunity for immigrants. They could gain that first Canadian work experience, they could gain a reference, they could gain orientation to the Canadian workplace and orientation to Canadian business, and that would help them in the start-up of their plan to either be employed or to start their own business.
MR. PORTER: How many immigrants have arrived in this province and gone through the Nominee Program and how many are still here - do we know the answers to that?
[Page 21]
MS. MILLS: Over 1,000 immigrants were nominated under the program since July 2003; in fact the total is 1,223 certificates have been issued. Those immigrants would arrive at various points in time. It should be noted that the immigration process is not a short process. Once the person is nominated, they then apply under the federal government - and there's a process they must follow in order to be approved by the federal - then they have a period of time to take up their permanent residency and be landed. So we know that 1,223 in total have been nominated. Each of those permanent principal applicants would have family members, so you could factor that by four.
Now, in terms of the landing information, the deputy referred to the increase in the numbers of people coming to Nova Scotia. In 2003, there were 1,400 immigrants landed in Nova Scotia. In 2006, over 2,500 had landed, so the numbers are on the incline and the increase is largely due to the Nominee Program.
MR. PORTER: Do we have any idea how many are still here, of those numbers, in this province?
MS. MILLS: No, we don't at this point. One of our objectives is to track our retention numbers. We have to wait until the next census data is out from Statistics Canada in order to answer that question.
MR. PORTER: So we really don't know how many are still within the country or just the province, we really don't know . . .
MS. MILLS: Not in total, no, and it should be noted as well that under the Charter of Rights an immigrant who lands in Canada is not required by law to stay in any one province; in fact they can go anywhere in Canada that they choose.
MR. PORTER: You spoke about this time frame from when they arrive till they get - and just for clarity, landed status, is that how you refer . . .
MS. MILLS: Permanent residence.
MR. PORTER: Permanent residence, and what is that time frame to get through, you know, you make application and . . .
MS. MILLS: It varies from country to country and it varies from category to category, but one of the advantages of the Nova Scotia Nominee Program is that it tends to be a faster process than some of the other federal categories, and so the average processing time can be twelve months, that time period.
MR. PORTER: What does the immigrant do within that twelve months?
[Page 22]
MS. MILLS: Usually they are applying from their home country.
MR. PORTER: So they're still there?
MS. MILLS: There are some instances where we have individuals who are here as temporary foreign workers and they may apply under our skilled worker category. So they would be working as a temporary foreign worker, they would have a work permit that has been issued by Citizenship and Immigration Canada, and then we would accept their application. Some other immigrants might be here. They would have long-standing roots in a local community, have spent many years coming back and forth to that community, and they may apply either from their home country usually or they may be visiting at the time, but in most cases most of the economic nominees, for example, would be applying from their home country.
MR. PARKER: Is there a certain, I will call it target area I guess, of employment that immigrants migrate to when they come or is there a vaster . . .
MS. MILLS: MISA, Metropolitan Immigration Settlement Association, keeps a database of the immigrants who arrive and are looking for employment. They provided us with a listing in January when we went around and met with companies to promote the Business Mentor Program and the skilled worker program. At that time there was a whole range of professions and tradespeople, skilled and unskilled workers, who were registered. Through our economic category, however, all of those applicants must have at least three years' experience in management, and many of them are entrepreneurs and owner/operators in their own countries, but many of them are highly skilled professionals as well.
MR. PORTER: Highly skilled professionals that would come as maybe an engineer of some type that may end up doing something different in this country?
MS. MILLS: Yes, but many of them would be seeking to have their credentials upgraded so they can work in their field. Some, however, do make career adjustments.
MR. PORTER: How difficult is it, or is it difficult at all to get those credentials equal to what they had?
MS. PENFOUND: With respect to foreign credential recognition, that is likely one of the hardest nuts to crack on the immigration file, and it's one that is a common problem for all provinces, not just Nova Scotia. The federal government started, last year, a foreign credential referral system where people in other countries who are seeking to come to Canada can find referrals to the right professional organizations and find pathways so they can understand what the hurdles are and how they go about getting their credentials recognized.
[Page 23]
There are several components to getting your credentials recognized or being able to practice your profession when you come to Canada or Nova Scotia. One might be someone who has been educated elsewhere and is seeking to be credentialed here. That involves figuring out whether or not an education or degree, for example, from Manchester, England or Delhi, India equates to a medical degree from Dalhousie. So, there's the equating of the education and then there are people who may already be credentialed in another country and there's the equating of the credentialing. Both of those things are at play.
This is of particular interest to us and we've all heard stories of doctors driving cabs and those kinds of things. Over the past several months through, I guess, the Spring and summer of 2007, our office conducted consultations around the province in consultation with the Department of Education. We had one in Sydney, two in Halifax and one particularly for the francophone community where we met with stakeholders and professional organizations.
The focus was to look at proposed solutions and how we can help those particular stakeholders and professional organizations meet the needs of immigrants and nominees who come here.
It's a very complex issue. Self-regulating professions have been mandated by government through legislation for the most part to protect the public, to have standards in place to ensure the public is protected and that they get a level of service and professionalism from members of that profession.
Having said that, there may well be barriers within those professional organizations that aren't necessary. We're at a point now where we are hoping to work with professional organizations. There are several in Nova Scotia who have been making great strides - engineering, for one and there are several others - but as you can appreciate, some professions are larger, more long-standing, have more capacity to deal with this. There are other smaller professions that may need help.
The government has certainly announced its intention to look at ways to eliminate barriers and consider how we can best help professional organizations remove barriers and help people become credentialed.
MR. PORTER: Do you have any idea - just as an example, I know you touched on it when you referred to Dalhousie Medical School and the issues of doctors driving cabs in this country - how many of those kind of medical people are in the province? As we move into the more technical offshore age in the years to come, are there those kinds of professionals in this province?
MS. PENFOUND: We don't have those statistics at hand.
MR. PORTER: Thank you for that. I'd like to talk a little bit about the residency refund option. Why did you introduce that?
[Page 24]
MS. PENFOUND: Pardon me?
MR. PORTER: Why did you introduce the residency refund option?
MS. PENFOUND: Why did we introduce it? The information we were getting, mostly anecdotal and through contact with individual nominees and companies, was telling us that the mentorship option might not work for everybody. It would certainly work for some, but there would be other people that might better be served with another option.
For example, there were some people who had come here and had not yet been matched, but in the meantime had found a job or had started their own business or were going to school. So to ask those people to leave that job or leave that business they had started to participate in a business mentorship arrangement seemed counterintuitive. If what we're looking for is to attract and recruit people to Nova Scotia and then welcome and have them settle here, if they were making those attachments on their own and have started their own business, it seemed like a better option to find a way to help them use their money to invest in their own business.
It was out of the concern that the program might not be meeting the needs of those people and that we might not be able to find appropriate business matches for everybody in the queue that led us to consider the possibility of other options.
MR. PORTER: Did we talk to everybody in the queue, as you refer to it? Did we advertise and, if not, why didn't we? You know there were a number of these people who may, just to clarify so that I am clear, you spoke a minute ago about it may not help for some, how was that decision arrived at? Who were the some and who weren't?
[10:15 a.m.]
MS. PENFOUND: Others may help but I will start here. We have, as a province, been talking to the immigrant community and other stakeholders for a considerable amount of time. We had lengthy consultation in preparation for the immigration strategy and we heard through those consultation concerns about fees. So we did a fee study and we eliminated some fees. We heard concerns and requests through that process that we should have other streams introduced. So after that we introduced the family business stream, the international graduate stream and hope to soon have the entrepreneur stream. So talking with our stakeholders and settlement organizations like MISA is something that we do all the time and, of course, we have been talking with individual nominees. As we mentioned before, we understand that some of those nominees, some of those 800 are not in the province so our ability to talk with some of them was somewhat limited. But the folks who were here and who we were talking with each day and making contact with certainly were telling us about what they were doing and what their business interests were and what their intentions were
[Page 25]
and we were formulating our ideas about how to best help them from what we heard from them.
Is there anything you can add, Elizabeth?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: The program staff who were working on the mentorship program would meet with nominees and would have an idea of what their interest was. Many of them, at that time, indicated their interest in starting their own businesses and indicated that that would be their preference. So it is certainly through those discussions that we became more aware of this interest on their part to start their own businesses and we also were at that point becoming increasingly concerned about the bonafide nature of some of the business mentor employment contracts that had happened.
MR. PORTER: Thank you. Just again for clarity, these are all people who had applied. These were all applicants that you just referred to and you didn't have information on some of them or couldn't find the whereabouts on them?
MS. MILLS: These were people who already were landed here in Canada. They had already been approved and now they were landing and meeting with us to start their business mentorship. So we do receive reports on a monthly basis from Citizenship and Immigration Canada and those reports list the nominees who land in Canada and where their destination is. In some cases they may have indicated at the port of landing that their destination was somewhere other than Nova Scotia. So the way we would contact nominees is when they would land they would come to our office and they would provide us with their local contact information. Those who were not coming to Nova Scotia were not providing us with that information.
MR. PORTER: So I can see where it made it maybe a little bit difficult to contact them. I understand why you can't name individuals or companies, and I don't want you to. Of the six companies where you didn't provide the second $50,000 instalment, how did you learn of the potential problems and what did you do about them?
MS. MILLS: We required that both the company and the nominee would report to the Office of Immigration and advise us whether or not a bona fide employment contract took place before the second $50,000 cheque was issued. In a couple of cases, when the company contacted us, the way in which their letter was written or their communications to the office was done, would suggest that perhaps an employment contract had not taken place. So we would do further investigation, further contact, phone calls back and forth with both company and the nominee to look into the matter further.
[Page 26]
In one case, one of the companies had actually gone under, was no longer in existence, so the second $50,000 cheque was not issued to them. In other cases, we just became concerned because of the way in which our communications with those companies and those nominees were proceeding. So alarm bells were going up and we would investigate and check further.
MR. PORTER: I see my time has pretty much expired so thank you.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you very much. The second round of questions will be 10 minutes per caucus. I recognize Mr. Preyra with the NDP caucus.
MR. PREYRA: Madam Chair, I would just like to follow from where I was before my period ended earlier. The current Minister of Immigration has said that immigration was just not a priority in 2005 and this was his shorthand way of explaining some of the difficulties the department had in 2005. We were talking about the lack of staff and the lack of office space and all that, and a lack of accountability mechanisms, all pointing to this fact that it just was not a priority.
I want to ask you about the 70 per cent retention rate. The minister, in his 2005 business plan says, we also plan to retain 70 per cent of immigrants by 2001. Today we heard that you really don't know how many of those immigrants are here and probably there just aren't enough mechanisms - I didn't see any in 2005 - that had ways of finding out where they are, we don't know where they are. Is that a fair statement?
MS. PENFOUND: The minister's statement, I believe, was that in 2002, you mentioned 2005, I think the minister's statement was . . .
MR. PREYRA: April 26, 2005, the message from the Minister and Chief Executive Officer of the Office of Immigration.
MS. PENFOUND: I understood him to say it was 2002 when he felt immigration was not a focus, but I can comment on that. The Government of Canada was just getting into nomination agreements with the provinces and Nova Scotia was looking at the best way for us to enter into that arena. That was stuff that happened when Economic Development was in charge of the file, so I'll leave that for you to ask them another day.
Your question about how can we tell who is here in Nova Scotia - that's always a complicated thing. Our best information will be the next census and that's where we get our best information, when the Government of Canada tells us who is living where. The only confirmed information that we will have will be, I guess, the next census is the 2011 census.
MR. PREYRA: And that's my question, that there were no mechanisms in the department itself to monitor these immigrants and these businesses as they were going
[Page 27]
through, to tell whether, in fact, the overall objective of recruiting immigrants to Nova Scotia had succeeded, other than the number of applicants.
I had a question as well about the fee review. We have a series of e-mail and letters exchanged, largely with Frances Wolfe to the minister, talking about the cost of the program itself. A number of times, Ms. Wolfe, you tell the minister that this is the highest program in the country and no other province had privatized in this way. Yet, throughout 2005, when the minister responds to questions about the high fees, he said that they are in the middle range and they're just in line with the other provinces. Where would the minister get that impression and why would he get that impression?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Wolfe. Ms. Penfound? Someone.
MS. PENFOUND: Could you repeat the question?
MR. PREYRA: The advice the minister was getting was that these are the highest fees in the country and the privatization was just like any other province and yet, his response in public was, it's in the mid-range and it was kind of a don't worry, be happy approach to immigration.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Frances, would you like to answer?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Wolfe.
MS. WOLFE: Initially, yes. I would have to see the actual documents that you are referring to that I sent, but I wouldn't discount that they were probably one of the highest in 2002. As far as why the minister would say what the minister did, I had no input into that, so I have no idea.
MR. PREYRA: Again, getting back to alarm bells that were rung in the department in 2005 when Mr. MacDonald was minister, throughout 2005 we get letters from the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration saying that the program as it was constructed was not acceptable to them, that it was just a way of extracting money from nominees and passing them on to businesses in Nova Scotia, and that the immigrants themselves were getting no benefit. The federal government, in fact, was ready to shut down our Nominee Program in 2006, before the Liberal Government was defeated. Yet Rodney MacDonald in his public comments said - and, in fact, he appealed to Minister Volpe saying, don't shut this program down, it's a successful program, give us a chance. Why would he do that in the face of all these alarm bells and in the face of federal criticism?
[Page 28]
MS. PENFOUND: We don't have in front of us the documents you're referring to. Can you provide us with them?
MR. PREYRA: The first document we have is dated June 15, 2002, and there are several from Bradley Pascoe, Citizenship and Immigration Canada, to a number of people, including Elizabeth Mills and Frances Wolfe.
MS. PENFOUND: Could we see a copy of the document?
MR. PREYRA: Not right now, but it's in the documents you sent us. So I'm assuming that some of you have seen it.
MS. PENFOUND: We don't have the documents in front of us.
MADAM CHAIR: I would just ask that the question be put to the witness and if the witness is unable to answer the question, then state that you're unable to answer.
MR. PREYRA: The document is number seven of the documents you've sent us. The first one is dated June 15, 2002, and if you would like, I can refer you to a number, April 29, 2005, document number 47.
MS. PENFOUND: I guess what I can say in answer to your question, as I mentioned before, we have had and continue to have a good relationship with Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They certainly did express concerns to us about the Nominee Business Mentor Program and concerns around it being passive investment. We, however, worked through those concerns with them and they understood that we had a pilot and that we were hopeful that the program, we felt the program had merit and that we would continue with the program. They indicated they may even introduce regulations, which were not forthcoming, to put some parameters around these kinds of programs. But in the context of our discussions with them, even though they did express concerns, I think there was an understanding that we were doing this as a pilot and that we would continue to see if the program had merit.
MR. PREYRA: Well, my question really was that throughout this period in 2005 and leading up to this exchange with Citizenship and Immigration, there were a variety of concerns and there were a flood of concerns that were being brought to the attention of the department. Yet the minister insisted in public that this was a very successful program and, in fact, the department wants to expand it and went on to expand it to include new streams and I'm wondering why that happened in the face of what we see now is just a very troubled department and a troubled program?
MS. PENFOUND: I can't speak to why the minister of the day would have voiced an opinion and you would have to direct that to him.
[Page 29]
MR. PREYRA: My last question just relates to some of the other categories that were, you know, criteria that was set up and Frances Wolfe talked about those earlier. The English requirement, just to use an example, I've talked with 30 or 40 of the immigrants and clearly more than half of them don't speak English. There were complaints from the nominees brought to the department in April 2005 that this was happening, that immigrants were being coached by Cornwallis. What measures did the department take to ensure that people met this basic English requirement?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: Economic immigrants came to Nova Scotia for an interview and were required to have a mandatory visit in Nova Scotia. Their file was processed and reviewed by our staff. There would have been an interview that took place and during the course of that interview the applicant would be required to answer questions in English. So the nominee officer would be convinced that the individual had basic English language skills.
MR. PREYRA: The nominees that I spoke with said that they were given questions in advance that would be asked by this group and, in fact, they knew nothing more than just to answer those questions by rote. Is that possible?
MS. MILLS: We had no evidence to say who was helping them answer those questions by rote. In some cases when they came for their visit, they actually participated in English classes while they were here.
MR. PREYRA: Just one last question, I believe I have a minute left. When did the department first find out that there was a sub-economy that had developed around the mentorship itself, that there were people connected to Cornwallis and people connected to the Welcome Centre and people connected to former nominees who, in fact, were receiving money from businesses, up to $15,000. To be less charitable, they were, in fact, kickbacks for referrals. When did the department first become aware that this was happening?
MS. MILLS: First, I would have to clarify that we never became aware of any kickbacks, so I just want to clarify. Also, I want to clarify that I don't know that I can agree with you that these individuals had a relationship with Cornwallis Financial. What I will say is that in January 2006, we became aware of this through some nominees who had talked with us. We brought this to the attention of Cornwallis Financial. We did discuss it, both parties agreed that this was not the route that we wanted the business mentor matches to occur by.
MR. PREYRA: Thank you.
[Page 30]
[10:30 a.m.]
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Order, the time has expired. I recognize Ms. Whalen with the Liberal caucus. You have 10 minutes.
MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much. I wanted to ask a couple of questions again about the sequence of events, I guess, concerning the federal concerns - their talk that this was a passive investment scheme rather than an immigration scheme and that, in fact, it wasn't benefiting the nominees as it should.
Again, in our timeline of documents, and I know you don't have them with you today, but there was certainly an e-mail from Ms. Mills to a Mr. Pascoe in which you justified or attempted to justify the Nominee Program as it was - the economic stream. I wanted to ask you at the time whether or not, Ms. Mills, you recommended within the department and to the minister that we stay the course?
MS. MILLS: First of all, I want to note that the discussion about passive investment categories was a discussion that was happening across Canada. It wasn't just about the Nova Scotia Nominee Program. Citizenship and Immigration Canada was concerned about any passive investment schemes that other provinces might have.
We entered into discussions with the federal government about their intent to bring forward revisions, potential revisions to the regulations. In discussions at a staff level with Citizenship and Immigration Canada, we discussed the value that we saw to the economic category.
MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much. After looking at all of those details, and we've all had the opportunity to read the detail as well, did you recommend that we just continue to stay the course? I make the point that our system was unique, there were no other programs exactly like ours in Canada. We stood out quite significantly in the program that we had set up here in Nova Scotia.
So the government had signalled specific concerns around the mentorships, the matching, the amount of money, the 80-20 split which they felt was too little being left with the nominee and also with the length of time of those contracts. So there were specifics that we're all aware of. I want to know in the actual - after the discussions, whether or not the recommendation from you as Executive Director was to stay the course?
MS. MILLS: I don't believe I'm at liberty to speak to advice to the minister at this point.
[Page 31]
MS. WHALEN: Could you tell me whether or not the minister - at the time it was Rodney MacDonald - whether he was properly informed of the federal government's concerns, their specifics.
MS. MILLS: I'm not exactly sure with everything that he would know or not know.
MS. WHALEN: So we don't know if he was properly informed about all the details but a few months later - the e-mail I referred to was from August - on October 12, 2005, he writes a letter to Minister Volpe in which he thanks the minister for not making changes that will impact our program. A sentence in the last paragraph says: I am reassured by your comment that the federal regulatory changes will not threaten the economic category.
So his letter is clearly again saying, we want to keep to the exact program we have in place and no change is coming. So would that have been drafted by a member of the Office of Immigration? Would this letter have been drafted from your office?
MS. MILLS: I believe so.
MS. WHALEN: So that means that the decision was made entirely to stay the course, with no changes at that point?
MS. MILLS: There was a representation at the staff level, you would have seen in those e-mails, that we be able to test the program. It was in very early days, very few nominees had arrived at that point, very few matches had occurred. We wanted to test it, we wanted to see how well it would work.
MS. WHALEN: I think it's worth noting, Madam Chair, that many of those people feel that they were sort of guinea pigs in this program, that they've come through and yes, they tested the program all right. The program failed the smell test and they're being left out entirely in the opportunity to benefit by any change in policy. However, that's not a question, so I apologize.
I'd like to ask about the matching of businesses and my first question would be, who determined what businesses would be involved in the program - this would be after July 2006, when you took control of the mentorship program?
MS. MILLS: There was an application process and Nova Scotia businesses would be qualified to participate in the program. A committee existed, the committee was chaired by staff of Nova Scotia Office of Immigration along with an Economic Development staff and Nova Scotia Business Inc. staff. Those applications would be assessed against criteria. If they met the criteria . . .
[Page 32]
MS. WHALEN: Thank you very much and I appreciate the idea that it was not a single person. Were the businesses solicited?
MS. MILLS: There was an application process. We advertised on-line. We also did information sessions around the province promoting the program and encouraging Nova Scotia businesses to apply.
MS. WHALEN: Was there a severe shortage of businesses in terms of the backlog of immigrants that you had arriving?
MS. MILLS: We had immigrants arriving and being matched. We would certainly want to recruit more and more companies to meet all the nominees we hoped were being matched. We were concerned about the limited numbers, but we were still making matches each day.
MS. WHALEN: Madam Chair, I'd like to ask Ms. Mills again if there were any suggestions for businesses that might have come from ministers' offices, or through government channels for businesses to be included in that list?
MS. MILLS: We had some businesses who already had a nominee. Then there was a policy introduced that they could not apply until a later time.
MS. WHALEN: Just on another track, looking at the trust fund - I know it's being audited now by the Auditor General, but in your opinion, with the number of people who have left the province and the forfeitures that have taken place as a result, is there enough money in that fund to refund the nominees who have stayed in Nova Scotia and have gone through in the early round of mentorships among the 200 that were first, are currently or have been mentored?
MS. PENFOUND: Using the word refund, in the context of the 206 people, their money is not in that trust fund. Their money has been paid to the employer they were matched with.
MS. WHALEN: I understand that.
MS. PENFOUND: But you asked if there were sufficient money to refund. Their money's not there to be refunded. With respect to the trust fund, as you will know, interest in that fund and claims on that fund are the subject of four separate lawsuits. The Auditor General is also reviewing the operations of our office so in terms of what will be available, we won't know that until those processes are complete.
MS. WHALEN: In terms of the funds that are in the trust fund to date, the amount that's in question around the Cornwallis contract, that would be the interest that
[Page 33]
accumulated? But there are forfeitures of money that were left in there and for each immigrant who didn't arrive in Nova Scotia and had no intention of returning here for a year, there's $100,000 that has been left in that account. My opinion is that we should be looking very seriously at whether there's money there to rebate money to the nominees who did test this program on behalf of the Province of Nova Scotia.
MS. PENFOUND: There has been no determination of any money having yet been forfeited. So we have not done an analysis or determination or decision about whether any monies in that fund are forfeited.
MS. WHALEN: In the recommendations that were suggested in the briefing note of May 2007 which was written by Carmelle d'Entremont, one of the suggestions was to discontinue the Business Mentor Program and provide full refund to all nominees. That was the first of the possible options, as you explored options. Has that been considered and would you give me some background on that?
MS. PENFOUND: I believe, and Ms. d'Entremont can speak to this herself but I believe that recommendation went, refund to all nominees not already matched.
MS. D'ENTREMONT: As the person who wrote that briefing note, at the time, the options that were being considered were always in light of those who had not participated in the Business Mentor Program. So that first option was if we stopped the program . . .
MS. WHALEN: Yes, okay, you never intended to help the people who had already signed on the dotted line, that's what you mean. If they had signed a contract, they were ineligible.
MS. D'ENTREMONT: They were ineligible.
MS. WHALEN: Okay. I read it to include all nominees. Again, in the beginning, the department began by saying that our job is to make Nova Scotia a place for immigration, a good place to come, a place where we can improve our retention of people who come from other countries. I think by leaving out 200 of the nominees who came through, or even the number who are still in Nova Scotia, what happens is we have a black eye in our province. I think that it really needs to be reassessed whether or not we can do something to mitigate the bad press that we get and the bad impression we leave with newcomers who did put their trust in us to manage this program to everyone's best advantage. It could have been a win-win program but it has not proven to be and the correspondence indicates that this was something that the department had flagged early on. The Office of Immigration, as it got set up and as you got your feet under you - you recognized the great shortcomings of the program.
[Page 34]
So I go back to the people who have signed on the dotted line and whether or not that was done in poor faith because really they have sacrificed a lot as a result of signing a contract and I think that it would behoove us to look more carefully at the trust fund. I wonder if there would be any indication that that is being done at present?
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: We would not be contemplating any program changes or options until the Auditor General has completed his review.
MADAM CHAIR: Order. The time has expired for the Liberal caucus.
I recognize Mr. Dunn for the PC caucus. You have 10 minutes.
MR. PATRICK DUNN: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you everyone for coming in this morning. I will make an attempt not to overlap too many questions that have already been discussed this morning. One question I think you have already answered concerning a person living in another country who was interested in coming to this province through the economic stream or the Nominee Program, what steps would be taken. I believe you have covered a lot of that information already so I will move on from that.
As I understand it, the goal of the Nominee Program was to attract innovative and talented people to our province. I, again, would like you to comment on any concerns that you may have had when these talented and innovative people ended up working in the areas outside of their expertise.
MS. PENFOUND: I will start although Ms. Mills may be able to help me out. Nominees who come to Nova Scotia for the Business Mentor Program - the economic stream - are coming here not because they have necessarily a particular credential, whether it be a doctor or a lawyer or an engineer. They come here to participate as a management person and to have jobs where they are involved in management. So the goal of that program - although we are happy to help immigrants come who would like to be credentialed, the goal of the Business Mentor Program is to have people participate in management positions in Nova Scotia businesses.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: I don't think I have anything further to add. I think that is correct.
MR. DUNN: I am curious, at least I am led to believe that there were no guidelines as far as tracking the location of immigrants who came to Nova Scotia. I am not sure if it was permissible to have guidelines to do this but could you comment on that?
[Page 35]
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: We do maintain a database of contact information of our nominees who do land and come to our office. So we ask that they keep our address and mailing information, phone numbers and faxes up-to-date. We often have events that the Office of Immigration sponsors and we invite our nominees to attend the events so we are able to communicate through that means. I will say, though, that not all nominees do provide their current address information so we can only keep in touch with those who voluntarily do so.
MR. DUNN: We have heard a lot about the economic stream but are there any other streams available to potential immigrants who would like to come to the Province of Nova Scotia and what are they and how are these programs doing?
MS. PENFOUND: I can tell you about the streams and then Ms. Mills can add in terms of how they are going. We have several streams, the economic one, which of course we have been focusing on today. We also have a family business stream, so someone who is here and running a business and wishes for one of their family members resident in another country to come here and join them can access that stream. We have community identified, where we have regional development authorities in communities who work to determine what the labour market needs are in that particular community and nominate individuals who can help them meet that need. We also have introduced an international graduate stream. This was just in March 2007 and we're quite excited about that stream.
The challenges for newcomers to Nova Scotia are getting their credentials recognized and settling in the province. So if you think about it, an international graduate, someone from out of the country who is here and participating in our education system, will graduate with a degree from one of our institutions. So the issue of whether their education is acceptable or equates to a Canadian education is not there. As well, they've spent several years in that educational institution so they have now begun to attach or settle in a community. So we think that will be a very fruitful source of nominees.
[1:45 a.m.]
We do have one proviso in that program that I think is worth noting. We sometimes have our educational institutions host people from other countries, particularly underdeveloped countries, who are here on the sponsorship of their government on the condition that they are coming here to be educated, to go back home and help their home country or community. So people who are here on these conditions are not eligible for the international graduate stream. We also have a skilled worker stream, which is very useful and we've heard some things in the press recently about people who are here and helping to meet labour needs that we are unable to meet on our own. We hope to introduce in the Spring, a new entrepreneur stream which would bring people to Nova Scotia who are interested in
[Page 36]
starting their own business. In terms of the stats and sort of where we are on numbers of people, Ms. Mills can elaborate on that.
MADAM CHAIR: Ms. Mills.
MS. MILLS: What I really want to point out and highlight is that our skilled worker category has grown quite significantly. In the 2006 calendar year, we had nominated 33 skilled workers. In 2007 until November 26th, we had nominated 107. So that category has really grown quite significantly. The other category that's really growing fast is the international graduate stream. That category was introduced in April 2007 and already 33 individuals have been nominated. The main intent of the provincial nominee agreements with the Government of Canada are to meet labour market needs. So most of our categories, with the exception of the economic category, are focused on skills, on bringing people to the province who meet our labour market needs and also to encourage and foster greater diversity within communities.
MR. DUNN: The Auditor General is reviewing the economic stream program. We're all aware of that. What has your department done so far to make the AG's job quicker, easier?
MS. PENFOUND: We have had contact with the Auditor General's Office and have met with officials from that office. We will be providing all information that they have requested and, as you can appreciate, we are dealing with a number of requests from this committee and from the Auditor General, but we certainly will be making the Auditor General and this committee our priority and we will be continuing to meet with them and responding to every request they have.
MR. DUNN: How much is the outside audit going to cost?
MS. PENFOUND: I'm not sure, I can't answer that.
MR. DUNN: What auditor is performing the audit?
MS. PENFOUND: I would like some clarification on which audit you may be referring to?
MR. DUNN: The Auditor General.
MS. PENFOUND: The Auditor General's Office and the staff from that office are performing the audit that was requested by this committee.
MR. DUNN: I guess I was referring to, like there's no side audit?
[Page 37]
MS. PENFOUND: You may be referring to the conflict of interest audit that the minister indicated we were engaged in?
MR. DUNN: Yes.
MS. PENFOUND: That audit is being performed by Michael Dunphy of Dunply & Associates.
MR. DUNN: Thank you, Madam Chair, those are my questions.
MADAM CHAIR: The time has now expired for questions. At this time we will offer the department through the deputy minister to make some closing comments. Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Thank you, Madam Chair, I will have very few. We consider our role to come here and answer honestly, truthfully and completely any questions that you have and help you understand the issues surrounding this program which you've shown interest in. That is our intention and we hope we've done that today and will do so at a future date, if requested.
MADAM CHAIR: On behalf of the committee I want to thank you all for being here today. There is one thing I want to say, by way of administration of this process, we have made a request for the list of documents that are being withheld and we want that in a timely fashion, and to expedite receiving that, I would ask that that be provided to the Clerk's Office by Wednesday, December 5th at 9:00 a.m., which is the tentative schedule for the subcommittee to meet to establish further witnesses and to consider what documentation we have not received. Ms. Penfound.
MS. PENFOUND: Madam Chair, as you will know, as you get swamped with these documents that we are swamped with, we are diligently working our way through providing the documents requested. We think we are now in excess of 4,000 records that we provided of a potential 10,000 or 11,000. We'll work through that as quickly as we can. You will appreciate that as we work through, the list will expand, so we will do our absolute best to provide that list by December 5th. We will only have the list relevant to the documents that we have reviewed to that date, but we will do our best to comply.
MADAM CHAIR: I've made my request on behalf of the committee, so we look forward to having you respond to that in a timely fashion. Is there any other business? Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: Madam Chair, on a point of order. As you are aware, I submitted a letter to you with regard to the recent subcommittee meeting that we had and I believe it has been distributed to the members of the committee at this point. Speaking to that issue of the release of documentation being one, but the fact that the subcommittee is now making
[Page 38]
decisions as to what the agenda will be for this without coming back to the committee as a whole for discussion, there are members of this committee who are not made aware what information would be, or given an opportunity to offer input on how decisions would be made.
As you'll note, I have referenced a couple of rules that I believe have been violated. Operating Principles and Practices, Section 8 clearly states that the Chairperson may hold meetings to receive evidence. A vote shall not be taken without a quorum present - a quorum of this committee, a committee of nine should be present. It doesn't speak to the subcommittee and I have some great concerns as to how this is proceeding. I guess my question is what is the rush to put documents out? Not only documents, documents that the subcommittee has decided on, the committee has had no input on it, but documents that have been altered as well. I have grave concerns over that and I'd like to have some discussion within the committee or maybe your explanation as to why it is so important to get those out urgently?
MADAM CHAIR: A point of order has been made. Is there any further discussion on the point of order? Mr. Colwell.
MR. COLWELL: It has been our standing policy in this committee that the subcommittee would go through confidential information, we have precedence to that, and decide what documents we would release, with an emphasis on protecting the privacy of individuals or companies that could be negatively affected by whatever happens in this committee, and I stand by that. I think it's appropriate to do that and unless the committee decides otherwise, I would like to see that procedure continue.
MADAM CHAIR: Mr. Steele.
MR. GRAHAM STEELE: It is true, Madam Chair, that the subcommittee ultimately makes a recommendation to the full committee, that's true. However, because all three Parties are represented on the subcommittee, it kind of goes without saying that whatever the recommendation is, if all the Parties are in accord or even a majority, that it will be supported in turn by a majority of the committee. Over my time in this committee, which now extends over six years, it has never been the case that the full committee has rejected a recommendation of the subcommittee.
I don't think it is a very good idea to have the full committee going through every page of 4,000 documents. I'm just very grateful that three of our members have taken on that task on behalf of all of us and I hope that's not what the member for Hants West is suggesting.
So if there's a breach of the rules, I would suggest it's more of a technical breach and we can certainly cure that if we pass a motion, as a committee, authorizing the subcommittee
[Page 39]
to do that work on our behalf and we may entertain such a motion on a future day, if this proves to be a difficulty.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. I will reserve the decision on the point of order. We'll have an opportunity to consult with Legislative Counsel. Mr. Porter.
MR. PORTER: Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a point of clarity on the point of the honourable member for Halifax Fairview; no, I'm not suggesting whatsoever that the full committee go through the number of documents. Only that a procedure - and he can call it a technicality if he so desires, but the subcommittee has brought back recommendations to the full committee on how to proceed in the past in this committee and we just believe that it should stay that way.
There is valuable input from every member. It is great for us to bring back the recommendation and for us to do the work, no question. But the input of the full committee should be adhered to when decisions are being made, especially on very important cases such as this one. That is the point that I am trying to make.
MADAM CHAIR: Thank you. Well, we've heard the discussion and, as I said, I will reserve my decision until a later date, a later opportunity. So with that, we will adjourn. Thank you very much.
[The committee adjourned at 10:56 a.m.]
