Mr. Speaker, as I stand today to respond to the minister's statement on immigration levels for the coming year, I am not particularly reassured by the minister's glowing picture of the state of Canada's immigration policy.
The minor increase in actual immigration numbers is somewhat irrelevant, as the actual number of immigrants who will be arriving this year is closer to the lower levels of projections for this year and will probably be the same next year. However, by announcing a modest increase of 5 per cent, the government can say it is moving closer to its red book promise.
The Liberal red book states: "We would continue to target immigration levels of approximately 1 per cent of the population each year". That works out to approximately 300,000 immigrants a year, and we are only at two-thirds of that total. I would suggest this is a much more reasonable number than the red book promise, but a number that is still likely to cause difficulty.
Part of the problem with these numbers is that the minister's own department is having difficulty handling and processing the applications. Last month one of the managers from the Vegreville office spoke to MPs' staff in the Vancouver area. At that time he announced that the Vegreville office had a backlog of over 15,000 files, with 7,000 of those files being over a year old. If we have that type of backlog now, what is going to happen if the Department of Citizenship and Immigration proceeds with its proposed cutbacks of up to 25 per cent of its staff?
Another interesting aspect of this announcement on new levels is the new category of provincial-territorial nominees. This new category will give the provinces and territories, with the exception of Quebec, the ability to share a grand total of 1,000 immigrants. As I said, with the exception of Quebec. Under the Canada-Quebec accord, Quebec already has sole responsibility for the selection of immigrants destined to that province. This applies only to economic immigrants. Nevertheless, last year Quebec had the ability to choose more than 11,000 economic immigrants who came to that province. In a sense of fairness, the federal government has decided to permit the rest of the provinces and territories to have a say in selecting a total of 1,000.
The numbers show another interesting aspect of the Canada-Quebec accord. Under this arrangement Quebec received $90 million to spend on settlement in that province. The federal
government in turn spent about $270 million in the rest of Canada. Thus, Quebec's share was about one-quarter of the total allotment, which was fairly consistent with Quebec's one-quarter of the population in Canada and was fairly consistent with Quebec's intent to settle 47,000 of the immigrants to the country, or one-quarter. However, a funny thing happened on the way to the forum. Quebec settled only 26,000 immigrants last year, which is only 13 per cent of the total. Yet it still received $90 million, or approximately one-quarter of all settlement dollars.
Next year Quebec will settle only 27,000 immigrants and refugees, or approximately 12 to 13 per cent of the total. Yet it will still receive $90 million, or 25 per cent of the funding.
Given Premier Parizeau's comments about the ethnic vote in Quebec, I can understand why immigrants are reluctant to move to that province. However, the reality is that the federal government is now funding the settlement of immigrants in Quebec at a rate twice that of the rest of Canada.
Levels, numbers, and dollars are only one part of the equation. Canadians are just as concerned about the quality of the immigrants we are receiving as we are about the number of immigrants we are receiving. Polls show there is not a great deal of public support for Canada's current immigration in this nation. The government likes to say it is because of the Reform Party that such support is down. While I appreciate the government's acknowledging our influence, I must inform its members that our party is just reflecting the concerns of ordinary Canadians.
Ordinary Canadians get upset when they hear that 14 per cent of sponsorship obligations are in default, to the tune of $700 million in 1993. They get upset when they read in the September 30 edition of the Ottawa Citizen that 19 per cent of welfare recipients in the Ottawa-Carleton region are immigrants and refugees. They want this government to get tough on sponsors who default on their obligations. Instead, they hear about cases like Mohammed Assaf.
In 1989 Mohammed Assaf sponsored his brother and family to settle in Alberta. Within two years his brother's family went on welfare. The Alberta taxpayers have had to shell out $40,000 in welfare payments. Despite attempts by the Alberta social services to collect the money from Mohammed, the sponsor, he ignored them. He then wanted to sponsor his second wife to come to Canada. In their wisdom, the immigration department officials said no, he could not sponsor her because he had an outstanding sponsorship obligation already.
Mohammed Assaf paid back $8,000 of his $40,000 obligation and then came up with a better idea: He would appeal to the IRB. Guess what happened? The IRB members said: "Do not worry about your debt to the Canadian taxpayer, we will let you sponsor your second wife here anyway".
What kind of message does this send, not only to the immigrant community but to the Canadian public at large? Outrageous IRB decisions like this one undermine everything the minister says he is trying to do to rectify the problem of defaulted sponsorship.
It is not good enough to blame the IRB. The members of the board are patronage appointees the minister installed. It is somewhat ironic that everything the minister is trying to accomplish through his department is being undone by the political hacks he appointed to the IRB.
While the percentage of immigrants who arrive in this country via the family reunification aspect of immigration is being reduced, it is still a major problem area. Most Canadians will acknowledge that the reunification of family members is a valid goal. However, this reunification must be limited to immediate family.
As reported in one of the studies incorporated in the book Diminishing Returns , over recent years each individual who has immigrated to Canada under the family class has had a multiplier effect of an additional seven immigrants. Unfortunately, many of these are solely done for money, be they arranged marriages for a large dowry or outright sham marriages. I have been informed of one case in which a woman was upset because she was having difficulty sponsoring her fourth husband in four years. Shams like these contribute to bringing the whole system in disrepute.
On the plus side, we have those immigrants who do make a positive contribution to Canada's economy. Studies consistently show that these people make more money than native-born Canadians.
Last year the minister proudly announced that the percentage of economic immigrants will rise from 43 per cent to 55 per cent of all immigration. While this may sound good, it is somewhat deceptive. In fact the majority of immigrants who come under the economic class are not those high income earners but the dependants of high income earners. In reality, only 17 per cent of those in the immigrant class are these high income individuals. When we add refugees to the equation, only 14 per cent of all newcomers to the country are economic immigrants.
Unfortunately, many of these individuals are becoming disillusioned with what they find here. Media reports from Vancouver recently indicated that many of these immigrants who arrived from Hong Kong are returning to Hong Kong. They cite the high and numerous taxes in Canada as well as endless government regulations that tend to discourage the creation of wealth as the main reasons they are leaving. Is it not ironic that these individuals believe they will be better off from a business perspective under the
communist regime of the People's Republic of China in a couple of years than they are under the Liberal government today.
Finally, I would like to discuss Canada's acceptance of refugees. We have always been generous in accepting legitimate convention refugees, and we should continue to receive our share of those fleeing persecution from conflicts in Africa, Asia, and the former Yugoslavia. Unfortunately, convention refugees are not necessarily what we are getting.
One of my staffers recently met with a young Somali refugee currently attending Ottawa University. The only problem is that this individual is neither a refugee nor a Somali. Rather he was born in neighbouring Djibouti and while a resident of France he came to Ottawa to go to university. When he started to run low on funds he went to a local Canada immigration office, claimed to be a Somali refugee and now the Canadian taxpayers are funding the rest of his education.
How about Tejinder Pal Singh, a convicted airline hijacker? He arrived in Canada, claimed refugee status under an alias and is now free on bail in Vancouver while the IRB hears his case.
If the government wants Canadians to openly accept refugees, then it had better make sure we are opening our doors to legitimate convention refugees and not murderers, hijackers or scam artists.
If the government wants all Canadians to support its immigration policy, then it had best make sure that it is bringing in people who want to make a positive contribution to our country, and not in the minister's own words the "wretched refuse" from "teeming shores".