Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

I'm sorry, we're going to deal with this motion. Mr. Shory, I apologize, but there is no more time for questions.

Witnesses, thank you for coming. You've stimulated a lot of questions from the committee. I thank Asian Community Aids Services, SUCCESS, Calgary Immigrant Educational Society, and the Northwood Neighbourhood Services for participating this morning and for making your contribution to the committee.

Ms. Chow, you have a motion that you'd like to make. Could you make that motion?

[Olivia Chow, NDP, Trinity—Spadina, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I move:

That the Committee recommend that the Minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration immediately reverse the $53 million in funding cuts to immigrant settlement and adaptation services, set to take effect March 30, 2011, and that this motion be reported to the House.

Mr. Chair, I'm a bit stunned about these cuts. There seems to be no analysis of the impact. If there is, it wasn't shared with us. We don't know how many people will be hurt, how many newcomers will be hurt, and we don't know how many staff will be eliminated. We just know there's a big number.

There seems to be no overall plan as to how to assist these agencies in their transitional period and how to make sure these newcomers will continue to get services. There seems to have been a set-up that elevated the hope of many of these agencies, only to dash them. I'm fearful of what's going to happen, not only to these newcomers but to the staff who would see their jobs eliminated, and in some ways, it impacts on the economy of the greater Toronto area. Having this large number of people lose their jobs and lose their services all in one shot, with no transition plan, is, in my mind, bad management practice.

I urge the committee to support this motion to reverse the funding cuts, and the urge is to both the minister and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, sir.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I'd like to second this motion.

Chair, we do have an extra unscheduled day of committee work for Tuesday. I'd like to suggest that we've heard some important information from the witnesses of what the consequences are of these particular unexpected cuts, and we also need to have additional clarity. The department has advised us that they will provide us with the formulas, on how they went about doing these cuts. We still don't have that exact formula to have an idea of, perhaps, how they went about it. That would provide us with greater clarity to understand whether or not there is a real rationale or whether the allegations of a political reason for these cuts, in fact, are correct.

So I'd like to suggest that we have the opportunity to hear more witnesses on Tuesday when the committee resumes our work.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Sir, that's fine. I'm at the wish of the committee. I had scheduled work-time witnesses for Tuesday morning. We can cancel those if there's a general consensus that you want to continue on with more witnesses. There are scads of witnesses on the list and we've only heard a few of them.

You still have the floor, but is there any consensus as to what we're going to do on Tuesday?

Sorry, we're interrupting your motion, but I think this is relevant.

Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

We have three heads of mission who are coming in, who are actually here on Tuesday from countries that we are studying wait times on. It's extremely convenient that they're actually here on Tuesday. If we were not to go ahead with wait times, then we would lose the opportunity to interview these folks who are actually here now for other reasons. So it was extremely convenient that we had scheduled Tuesday for wait times. We'd actually have these folks here. We've been trying to do this wait time thing for a long time. We have some experts who we were actually going to go fly to and speak to, at great expense. We're not doing that now; they're actually here.

So I'm not going to agree that we use Tuesday for more of these hearings. I'm suggesting for Tuesday we do what we said we were going to do and study wait times on Tuesday.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Not to take sides, and I'm trying not to, but for clarification, the three witnesses would be from New Delhi, Beijing, and Manila. However, if the committee wants to deal with settlement services on Tuesday, we would not proceed. But this means that we would probably be hearing from those witnesses at a later time.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra, please let me finish. Maybe I'm wrong, but we would probably hear from those witnesses another time, and that would have to be via teleconference from their countries.

Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, you still have the floor.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

I would think that we'd want to work in a reasonable and consensual way on this committee, considering that there will be the opportunity to speak with these experts at a later time and with the understanding that once the committee returns from the break.... This has been an ongoing study for a long period of time; it will take a lot more work.

This, on the other hand, is of special urgency. It's a matter of weeks before these groups will be suffering from those cuts. As was mentioned, there are tens of thousands of individuals who are affected. We're terribly worried about what will happen in a matter of weeks. I think it's appropriate that we do this in a consensual way. There are witnesses, as you said, in the roster, who've submitted, and only a small proportion...and of course our Conservative colleagues have witnesses as well. So it would be a proper mix of witnesses who would represent the points of view of everyone on the committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Kennedy.

[Gerard Kennedy, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I want to speak in support of the motion. I think there are serious issues with what has happened with the ministry. We have documentation from dozens of agencies that have been, frankly, mistreated in terms of not being able to protect their clients. There is no one from the government side to offer what is going to happen to thousands of clients on March 31.

We are going to release data today that will show that big parts of where the cuts are taken from are actually underfunded on a per person basis. While everyone should be happy for anyone who got more dollars, it looks like a shuffling around for political purposes. Certainly, the intent that was there from the last government to try to close the gap that we heard about today, to make up for a shortfall, looks to have been abused. It's very serious that those cuts not go forward until full information is put forward.

If there is a response from the government's side, I think it would be very incumbent on this committee. I would like to invite the government members to support this motion, because without it there will be an incredible cloud hanging over the actions of this government. Not from any source yet has there been objective information to say that these cuts are not harming people, first of all. So thousands of people stuck in the middle of getting assistance are going to have that help removed. And this is self-help, this is a hand up, this is self reliance, and they're going to be deprived of it by the actions of this government.

It's really important, and I think it would be great if there was consensus from this committee that would send a strong statement to the government to stop this, to hold up, to provide the rationalization. If the government members are confident that there is a rationalization, that they really believe this can be justified, then there should be no reason to do this in haste.

I think you have to show respect to the people you've heard from. To do the opposite is to say, your 25 years...you've been here since 1986; those Afghan interpreters don't matter. On the one hand, you've contracted to protect Afghan interpreters and bring them to Canada, and yet the one agency that can do that in a major centre, which is a resource for all across the country, you're effectively shutting down. Can't you take a pause? Can't you say, wait a minute, there might be something wrong with this? It's not committing anybody to do anything else, except to say that we actually want to run the government well. We're not going to manipulate it for political purposes. And even the appearance of that is going to make us stop and do something better.

If the Afghan association goes out of business, where are those interpreters going to be? Where are their families going to be? No one in CIC has provided answers to that. We've talked to the regional head; we've talked to the national head. There are no contingency plans to serve people. Why would you want people on welfare? Why are you shoving them down on municipalities?

Toronto, we're going to show, has less funding per capita than almost any other part of the country for new immigrants. That city council is going to be asked to pick up the slack. Is that what this government is saying, that they want Toronto and other places to pick it up? Now the Province of B.C. is picking up $8 million. Otherwise people in B.C. would be hurt right now. I say to the members from there that's not something the government should be proud of. I don't think B.C. has a surplus.

This is really important. I think it's important for this committee. I think it's important for this Parliament to say it's time to re-examine this. That's what this says. We're not taking away the executive power. It's simply saying to them that there's sufficient reason here to rethink this. We don't know whether this is officialdom. It looks like a political thing, but if it's not and it can be explained, we need to bring the officials forward and find out what's happening, because you cannot justify this on the grounds the minister has been speaking about. It does not line up with numbers, and very soon that's going to be public information.

I hope the committee will see its way to getting ahead of that and helping this be dealt with in a way that doesn't hurt people, because that's what's going to happen. At least 78,000 people in Ontario will be harmed in 45 days if this committee doesn't act the way that Ms. Chow suggested.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you, Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Uppal has the floor.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Just to go back, we're obviously dealing with two things here: one is the motion and one is the suggestion.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

One thing, Mr. Uppal; we're dealing with the motion.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

The motion, but there was a suggestion to—

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

There was a suggestion, but the topic that's on the floor is the motion of Ms. Chow.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

We did entertain it before.

Okay, then, that's fine. I'll leave it at that. I had a concern about Tuesday's meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chair takes the position that unless the committee directs me—and at this point it would have to be by way of a motion—we will be proceeding with wait times on Tuesday. If the committee directs me otherwise, we will do what the committee wishes.

Are you finished, sir?

Monsieur St-Cyr.

[Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc, Jeanne-Le Ber, QC]

As for the motion before us, my mind is made up. I am going to support it. The question remains, quite simply, whether we need to deal with it now. I don't think that it is relevant to hear more witnesses on this issue. I sincerely do not think that there is a witness who could change the mind of one of the 12 committee members. It is important to meet with official presently in Canada next Tuesday.

I also had a concern from pharmacists about medication. I had suggested this at the start, and perhaps we could come back to it on Tuesday. There are still some problems. I understand that CIC still hasn't had the opportunity to meet with the pharmacists association, so that is perhaps not going as quickly as we would have hoped. The pharmacists are having difficulty getting information on coverage from Medavie if they have not made an individual agreement, which was not the purpose of the agreement.

Let's leave a little time, let's adopt this motion today, and let's proceed on Tuesday with officials posted abroad. I will then have the opportunity on Thursday to ask the minister more questions if the situation still hasn't moved forward. I think that would be reasonable.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Dykstra has the floor.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I, too, certainly have a concern. It's obvious we spent a couple of days listening to what folks had to say about those who were impacted by the changes that are being made. But I think it's important not to position this from some sort of convenient truth perspective or, quite frankly, a political perspective. I can appreciate at times where Mr. Kennedy is coming from, but he's asking the government to side with him on a particular issue or to side with Ms. Chow's motion, while at the same time he spent the entire exercise, at least when he was asking questions, confirming in his mind that these were political decisions. I don't know how you reach out to your colleagues across the aisle when the statements that you make are....

I'm going to get to that, because your facts aren't actually true. You want to trump up some 78,000 number based on some research you've done. Go ahead and do your press conferences and we'll see where those go. As you know, Gerard, you can go ahead and do your press conferences and try to drive a message, but it's simply political. You're not dealing with the actual individuals here who are being impacted by it, and you're also not dealing with the overall decisions that have to be made across this country with respect to immigration.

It's fairly simple, Mr. Chair. There's certainly a very clear chart that shows that in 2005 and 2006 there were 140,000 permanent residents—not individuals who landed, but permanent residents—in the province of Ontario. The receipt of funds was $111 million. We travel through the process and we see in 2006 and 2007 a decline in permanent residents--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

The chair doesn't have that chart, Mr. Dykstra.

[Rick Dykstra, Conservative, St. Catharines, ON]

I'm happy to give it to him afterwards.

In 2007 and 2008 there was a decline to 111,000. In 2008 and 2009 there a decline to 110,000. In 2009 and 2010 there was a decline to 106,000.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Stop the clock.

A point of order.