Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Sept. 26th, 2006

[Fariborz Birjandian]

I think one of the issues we saw with the old settlement allocation model was lack of flexibility. They had it for so many years that it was very hard to move it. I think you gave an example of your area, and in Calgary we've moved from 5,000 people coming six or seven years ago to 15,000. Has the funding changed? No--so somebody in Calgary sometimes has to wait six months to go to basic ESL classes. I think we are hoping they'll build flexibility into this new settlement allocation model, so that if suddenly one area gets so many people, as in your example and in the Calgary example, they will be able to do something about it.

In the past, we haven't been able to address it. We have to put that flexibility into our way of doing business and into funding.

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Didn't Calgary have the problem of people moving to Calgary after landing in another city first, and that often the model wouldn't account for the fact that they actually were demanding the services in Calgary?

[Fariborz Birjandian]

Exactly. Again it goes back to the old settlement allocation model. We are hoping to change that, because Canada is changing, obviously, with immigrants.

As well, you have to look at the psychology of people. We are recruiting people who come from cities of 20 million, 10 million. Expecting them to go to a smaller centre is a bit too much to ask. However, we have done some work locally. There are other groups who have been in this country for a few years; they might be a better audience for being encouraged to move to a smaller centre--as some of them are doing, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Mr. Devolin is next, please.

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Good morning, and welcome.

This is an enjoyable conversation that we're having, and I'm certainly learning.

I'd like to follow up on this issue of the challenges that are being faced in the major urban centres versus the challenges that are faced in more rural communities or in other provinces.

Prior to becoming an MP, I worked as a consultant with the Ontario Smart Growth Initiative and we travelled all across Ontario, talking about growth issues. What became very apparent was there were two--I don't want to call them two solitudes--very different experiences.

When you're in Toronto, for example, growth was in your face. Whether you liked it or not, the onslaught was coming and the issue was how do we manage or try to steer it; versus in Sudbury, for example, in northern Ontario, they're dealing with depopulation and youth out-migration, and where do we stand and wave our arms to try to attract more people to come here. So this is not only an issue, as you say, between provinces with large cities, but even within those provinces, B.C. and Ontario.

I also agree with Ms. Foster on the notion that if the municipality decides it wants to go in this direction and it embraces the notion and welcomes people, it's a far better approach than somehow trying to require people to live in places where they don't want to live.

I'm actually wondering if you know of examples where this may work. The question I have is, is there an issue of almost critical mass in a community? For example, if someone's come here from another country, if they go to Toronto or Vancouver they know that they will find people who speak their language, who share their culture, and they can find a grocery store to buy specialty items and they can find a church, whereas if they move into a more rural area they're very much on their own.

Have there been provinces or communities that have actually been proactive in terms of saying we want to bring immigrants in, and rather than just going after one or two people we'll actually try to build a critical mass in our community so that immigrants actually want to come here because they can get some of those services that maybe they think up until now they could only get in large cities? Are there provinces or communities across the country that you think have taken this approach, and does it work?

[Fariborz Birjandian]

I think not by design, I think by accident it's happened. I can speak of Brooks, for instance; it's a city that attracted almost 5,000 Sudanese. I think in terms of the whole notion of attracting people, the critical mass is identified through the research as one of the issues that can help people to look at those centres if they have some relationship or they have a community they can relate to. Obviously, that has been proven. At least in Alberta we can talk about Brooks as an example. We have thousands of people moving there.

Now people actually come to Calgary knowing that in two days they're going to go to Brooks. So, yes, to answer your question, it works. In Winnipeg I think there was the example of the Filipino community, which has resulted in the expansion of that community as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

I'm trying to keep our committee on track here, because at 11 o'clock we do have another committee moving in here and we have the subcommittee report to deal with. In the interest of getting every speaker on--there are only two left who didn't get on, Madam Folco and Blair--could we just cut it there, Barry? It's four minutes. I have to try to get two more people on who never had a chance to speak today.

Thank you, Barry, for your consideration.

Madam Folco.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Devolin. I appreciate your generosity, as usual. Thank you very much.

First of all, I very much appreciated last night’s meeting non only with yourself, but also with other political party representatives. I think this is the beginning of a good relationship that will involve information-sharing and support, as much for yourself as for us, on ideas and policies.

As it happens, I have two questions to ask concerning policies. First of all, you spoke in some length about problems in the field as well as of budgetary problems with regards to Citizenship and Immigration.

I’d like to ask you about solutions that you would consider. It’s always important to hear about possible solutions from people who have a particular problem because most of the time they are the ones who have the right answers.

That would be my first question, and I'm speaking quickly because I'd like to give my colleague time to ask questions as well.

In regard to my second question, I'd like to move the debate to something else, and that has to do with seasonal workers. There is a program with the Canadian government and the provincial governments for getting seasonal workers from Mexico, Russia, and the Caribbean, particularly, but not only, in the rural areas. I think that you certainly know a great deal about this in British Columbia. Ontario is well aware of this, and Quebec is well aware of this. But I'd like to hear from you on whether you would in particular support such a program in the Atlantic provinces that are in need of seasonal workers, from what I understand.

My first question has to do with policy elements that you could suggest.

Thank you.

[Stephan Reichhold]

As for the first question, we told the Minister that one of the bigger problems we encountered in every province is the fact that different institutions and Departments are functional silos. You know that the integration of refugees and immigrants is important for everyone. It has to do with schools, hospitals etc. But Departments don’t communicate with each other. This is the situation in Quebec and everywhere. I think we need a horizontal and cross-functional approach. The responsibility for the integration of immigrants does not rest solely with the Department of Citizenship and Immigration but also with Human Resources Canada, the Department of Health, and the Department of Justice. These people need to talk to each other, which is not the case right now.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

Is there anybody else?

[Fariborz Birjandian]

I think this is happening quite a lot in Alberta because of the urgent need that the business community has for seasonal workers. But again, and you can do the research, it's not really the ultimate solution. I think you have a lot of countries, even some of the developing countries, such as Dubai and Libya, that have been using temporary workers as a solution, but they have not really capitalized on all of the resources that come into the countries. Although that is acceptable in the short term, I think we should have a longer-term plan to address the issue.

Also on that particular note, because I've been involved in a few issues, we have to develop a very clear policy on how we will treat these people. We have some issues and the issues are quite sensitive. I think we have to pay attention to the fact that once they come here, they need to at least have a place to go to when they have problems. They are currently quite afraid to raise issues if they have issues with employers.

[Raymonde Folco, Liberal, Laval—Les Îles, QC]

If I could reply, Mr. Birjandian, I totally agree with what you're saying. Those are kind of phase two and phase three, if you like. I wanted to hear from you on whether you were interested in enlarging phase one, given that we absolutely want to look at some of the other things you have suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

You have 30 seconds, and that will complete the five minutes, if anyone has any comment on what Madam Folco had to say.

[Reza Shahbazi]

Quickly, in terms of immigration and the way we feel about nation-building, nation-building is when people come and have vested interests in the future of this country. If you're talking about seasonal workers, that may again address some of the needs of companies and businesses.

I'm hesitant to give a personal opinion that would help us in terms of our nation-building. I think there are areas we have to be concerned about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Folco.

I will now go to Blair Wilson.

[Blair Wilson, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the good work you do and for the brief you've provided to us.

I represent a half-urban and half-rural riding in British Columbia, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country. As you mentioned in your brief, Canada has strong ties with other countries. In British Columbia, we definitely have strong ties and a good relationship with people from China, Korea, India, and Japan.

At the same time, we have an economy in British Columbia that is booming in all sectors, in construction, biotech, and high-tech. As you outlined in your brief, we have a major skill shortage in B.C. When you combine that with the aging population in Canada and the low birth rate, we've got to do something to create a new population policy.

The question I have is quite straightforward. In previous governments, we had set a target of 225,000 to 250,000 new Canadians a year. Last year Canada let in 262,000, which I think is a good start, but it's far from where it needs to be.

I was recently in Vancouver with Mr. Ignatieff, who was talking about a new number of 350,000 new Canadians, which I concur with. I think the present minority Conservative government is looking to pull those numbers back down from 260,000 to 225,000, which is only going to cause major disturbances in the economies of British Columbia.

My question to you is this. What types of immigration targets and population policies would you recommend for Canada?

[Reza Shahbazi]

I think we'll leave the numbers to those who can predict demographic and labour market shortages and those things.

What you're saying is that regardless of the number being brought to Canada, they have to have proper services. We have to have the means not only to integrate them into our society and our labour markets but also to make sure we utilize the skills they're bringing. We can bring half a million and not utilize 100,000 of them or we can bring 200,000 and utilize all the expertise and experience they bring.

I think it's a question of how best we use those we bring here, and how best we can integrate them into our Canadian society.

In terms of the numbers, we have heard the numbers. We have heard 1% of the population. The Liberal government talked about it. I'm sure the Conservatives have also been looking at it. But really the whole issue is how best we use what we are bringing here. I think that's what we talked about: the smart funding, the smart money, and the outcomes. It's not just about the numbers, even though those are important issues that we have to deal with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

I want to thank all of you for coming here today to testify before the committee. I'm very well aware of the important work you do. Bridget Foster, back in my neck of the woods, never neglects to keep these issues front and centre. I want to thank you, in particular, Bridget.

Thank you. It's been very interesting. I wish we had more time to pursue all of the questions that people have to ask, but in the interests of time we have to move on. Again, thank you.

[Reza Shahbazi]

We appreciate the opportunity, and we are very much looking forward to continuing our work with this standing committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

Thank you.

We have only ten minutes or so. It's too bad there is a committee waiting to come here to begin their committee meeting, because generally we can go a little bit over in our committee meetings.

We do have the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We had our subcommittee meeting about a week ago, and I believe all of you have a copy of the agenda. I want to indicate to you that this agenda is not written in stone. You can amend it if you wish to and talk about it a little bit.

Normally this is an important issue. I would postpone it until Thursday, but the clerk has indicated to me that it's necessary to deal with some of it, given the fact that he has to contact witnesses to come here.

So I present to you the second report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. We're down to Thursday, September 28. We will talk about Bill C-14 at that time. But let's talk about the parts from Thursday up until October 26. Do we have any comments from anyone on the agenda?

Jim, go ahead, please.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, nowhere in the proposed agenda do we see that the minister will be coming in front of this committee to tell us where he sees the department going, what changes he wants, and certainly what changes are being trial-ballooned for citizenship.

It's nice to go to the press and be able to throw something out there. I'm just wondering, since the parliamentary secretary is here, whether he would undertake to ask the minister to come to our committee. I'm sure all the members of the committee would certainly agree that getting the minister here would be, not only for this issue, but for other issues, a welcome exercise. I'm just wondering if the parliamentary secretary would agree to undertake that on behalf of our committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We will have an opportunity to meet with the minister. I believe it was mentioned in our subcommittee meeting that the minister will be presenting his supplementary estimates, so he'll be coming before our committee fairly soon, Jim.

I don't know when the supplementary estimates are going to be tabled.

[Jim Karygiannis, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm not talking about supplementary estimates.

I'm sure the parliamentary secretary will certainly undertake on behalf of our committee to ask the minister to come in front of us. Besides hearing about the supplementary estimates, we would like to see and certainly ask the minister where he wants to go, where he sees the department going, and what it all means, beyond throwing out trial balloons.

I think it's incumbent upon the minister to come to our committee and certainly to tell us where he's going and to have that put on the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Norman Doyle]

We can certainly put that request to the parliamentary secretary to put to the minister.

The minister has been before the committee presenting the division of his department on two occasions, I believe. I don't know if that's enough before we get the supplementary estimates. In any event, I will hear from the parliamentary secretary.

[Ed Komarnicki, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Certainly I hear what you're saying, and I'll take your message to the minister. He has appeared before this committee on two occasions, and certainly was put to the test by no one other than Mr. Andrew Telegdi and others. I think you missed that meeting, or weren't there on perhaps that occasion or on the subsequent occasion when he outlined his views. Certainly when estimates come forward the opportunity will be there for you to deal with some of the specific issues you may have in mind.

Having said that, and depending on when that comes before the committee, I'm certainly willing to talk to the minister to see whether some accommodation can be made. My sense is that he appeared twice, he will appear again, and certainly you'll have all the opportunity on that occasion to ask whatever questions you may want. In that context, I will certainly talk to the minister.