Evidence of meeting #42 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
A point of order.
If Mr. Dykstra is speaking in an official capacity, it's a disadvantage for the committee. I will submit the figures and research that we've done to the committee, through you, Mr. Chair. I would invite him—either through your device or through Mr. Dykstra's agreement—if he believes in his figures, to submit them and make them available to everyone on the committee.
I also want to mention that, on the other discussion, there are people here who drove all morning from Toronto—
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
When I bang that gavel, that means I have to speak, okay?
Mr. Dykstra has indicated, Mr. Kennedy, that he will provide the chair, and the chair will provide the other members of the committee with that chart.
Mr. Dykstra, you have the floor.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Sure, that's no problem.
If Mr. Kennedy is doing the kind of detailed research he suggests he's doing, he would simply have gone to the website of the ministry, because that's where this actually exists and where I'm speaking from.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Well, it's not always easy when somebody's....
Also, when you look at where we have gone, in terms of funding—if I could just conclude this aspect, Mr. Chair—we have moved from $111 million in 2005-06 in Ontario to well over $400 million. So to suggest that there is not concern or focus on delivering service to the folks who come to this country and become permanent residents in the province of Ontario is not only unfounded, it's actually absurd and untrue.
When you look at the efforts that have been put forward--and I'm speaking now not just to the issue of immigration, but across government--we have a responsibility, as a government, to make sure that we have solid programs, that we have financial accountability, that we have measured outcomes, that we're able to be responsive to the local needs of communities that these organizations are serving, and that their performance, on an ongoing basis, is one that meets those criteria. Those criteria were set out or determined 10 years ago, when the Auditor General came in and did a review.
We have a responsibility, I think, to respond to the recommendations of the Auditor General--which this government has done--but, to a greater extent, we have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this country, in particular in the province of Ontario, because obviously that's what these hearings are focused on, to actually make sure that every dollar spent is a dollar well spent, not just to help immigrants and refugees who come to this country, but to ensure, from an overall perspective, that Canadian residents, Canadian citizens, are seeing their tax dollars spent in a wise and fruitful way.
And the point's been made here, Mr. Chair, about Toronto. Toronto is going to receive approximately 92% of its funding. There's been an 8% reduction in funding in the City of Toronto. York Region--which the last time I checked is in Ontario, right next door to Toronto--is getting an increase of 30%. Why is that? It's not because immigrants are landing in York Region, but because they are settling in York Region. This is true for the city of London. This is true for Alberta, for Manitoba, for Saskatchewan, for Newfoundland, for P.E.I., for New Brunswick, and for Quebec. What we are seeing is a change whereby our immigrants, who are potential Canadians, permanent residents, are coming and they're staying.
We have provinces across this country, Mr. Chair, that have had increased, on a per capita basis, their share of the provincial nominees for which it is their decision to make. If you look at where those numbers were in 2004-05 and you look at where they are in 2009-10, I can tell you the distribution is on a much fairer basis than it was previously.
Now does that mean we've established that we're not going to fund the province of Ontario? I think if you look over the past five years, you can see very clearly that this government has implemented a strategy in which some of these organizations in the province of Ontario have seen their funding doubled, tripled, or quadrupled in the last five years. Why? Because they are delivering outstanding service, because they are serving a higher clientele base, and because there was a lack of funding or a lack of delivery of service prior to 2005-06.
Conservative
Liberal
Gerard Kennedy Liberal Parkdale—High Park, ON
Mr. Dykstra doesn't mention that this money was from an agreement that predates his government. It came from the previous Liberal government. I just wonder if he's planning to table documents to show otherwise.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Mr. Kennedy, you've been around this process long enough. That's not a point of order.
Mr. Dykstra, you still have the floor.
Conservative
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Actually, you're right, Mr. Chair, there's no need to respond to that.
At the end of the day, these decisions are not easy decisions. They're decisions that are made based on ensuring that we are delivering a top line service, and that our agencies are delivering it on behalf of this government and on behalf of Canadians in a way that makes sense.
I understand, for political reasons, that the opposition wants to support this motion. If this committee wants to work through this further, I'm prepared to listen as to how we might do that. But by simply saying that we should just be putting back what is going to be reduced, that doesn't answer the question of all of the things that I pointed out, of all of the things that the minister has responsibility for, and of all of the things the ministry has responsibility for in terms of delivering service and making sure it meets the objectives and standards it's supposed to.
Just to simply put a motion forward states the obvious; it states that this is a political decision. It speaks nothing to what the future is of these organizations or what they need to deliver in terms of service over the next number of years.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
Okay. We have a problem, or maybe we don't have a problem. We're already 10 minutes over the time allowed. The only person of the next committee I see here is the clerk. So I'm prepared to go a little further, unless there's no further debate. If there is further debate, we may have to push this over until Tuesday.
Mr. Oliphant, very briefly, or we're going to have to adjourn.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I think I just heard the possibility of some openness there from the parliamentary secretary to engage in some more conversation about this. I haven't had a chance to connect with my colleagues on this. I just thought I heard that there's an opening there for some conversation on this, which means we can try to work out some more stuff on this and then vote on this motion after we've heard some more witnesses.
I think I heard that in your phrasing, that we're not there yet, but I may have misinterpreted you.
Conservative
Rick Dykstra Conservative St. Catharines, ON
Yes. I wasn't speaking in regard to witnesses. I was speaking in regard to the detail that you guys have asked for in terms of the criteria in the decision-making process. That's going to be delivered by the ministry here. I just think it's a little early to be making these kinds of decisions on motions.
Liberal
Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON
I will be bringing a motion to the committee tomorrow regarding information I would also like to get based on my question of privilege the other day. I've been able to do some research with the legislative folks and I've found out that, yes, I can, indeed ask for some of the back-up to what the parliamentary secretary gave the other day.
I'm going to move that motion tomorrow to get there for Tuesday, so I think we're going to have to deal with this a little bit further.
Conservative
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
Mr. Chair, you know that I've tried individually and at committee, both at the subcommittee and at the committee level, to extend the hearings for next Tuesday. I didn't get consensus on that.
Yes, I'd prefer to have some more hearings, some more studies. I approached you directly to see whether...because we haven't received the information from CIC and you persuaded me...because we have a mission coming and we should do wait times. As a result, my motion is in front of this committee.
In some ways I think it's timely that if we can send a message out through this motion that you can't just cut off funding like this without even a transition plan.... If everything that Mr. Dykstra has said is correct and the immigrant numbers in the three-year average in Ontario did drop by 4%, okay. But you have to have some kind of transition plan. Even if you're going to yank funding, you can't just leave people high and dry like that.
I didn't agree with the approach, but my worry is that if we don't deal with the motion today and then we continue with wait times on Tuesday, we haven't really made a decision. So unless there's a motion--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
My problem, Ms. Chow, is that we're well over time. I see a couple of members of Parliament--
NDP
Olivia Chow NDP Trinity—Spadina, ON
I think we should just call for a vote on the motion, given that we're going to continue, unless there is a motion to do Tuesday--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative David Tilson
The chair's position is, assuming no one kicks us out of here, that we're going to vote on this motion. If no one directs me otherwise, it seems there is no consensus to change the plan for Tuesday. We would have to vote on that.
We're going to, first of all, deal with your motion and we're going to do that right now.
We're not going to do that right now.
Do you have something else to say on debate? Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, do you wish to speak to this motion?
Conservative
