Debates of May 18th, 2005

Supply

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I suppose if the member who had asked me questions prior to this member would have raised that, he probably would have said that it is not up to me to do that. That is a provincial jurisdiction.

When we do an assessment of qualifications, whether they are earned on the job or in an academic institution, these assessments are done locally and we respect that jurisdiction.

Because we are talking about skill sets that are learned and earned elsewhere, I want to advise the House as well that one of my other initiatives and one of my other priorities was to bring as many students through the international student visa program in the hope that we would get many of these young men and women to become attached to our country, maybe through a particular province, through the study program and through the application of work afterwards.

That is why I indicated I would provide them all with a work visa that would last for two years, provided they came from beyond the three major cities in the country, so they could begin to develop roots on the area and then apply for permanent residency.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to address several issues.

The first is visitor visa requirements for EU member states. The European Union currently has 25 member states. This now means that citizens of Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, just to name a few, no longer require visitor visas to travel to other member states like the U.K. or Germany.

Unfortunately, citizens of seven new member countries that entered in May of last year still require visitor visas to come to Canada.

I get many calls from my constituents. Besides just tourism, their family members cannot come to Canada for weddings or in the worst case funerals. They find it especially irksome because often they are told that it is because from those countries in the past people have stayed on and worked illegally.

However, times change. At the present time because they are EU members work permits for those people are no longer required in neighbouring countries such as the U.K., Ireland or Sweden.

If they want to travel to a foreign country to work, they would probably make better wages and be a lot closer to home in countries such as the U.K.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration understands that the situation in Europe is in his own words constantly evolving. He is aware that Europe is expanding and with that comes new political realities. He has been reviewing this matter and it is my hope that he will announce streamlined measures for visitors from the seven new E.U. member countries such as Poland.

I was just curious at what kind of timeline we may be looking?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member is right. The European Union is in a constant state of evolution and seems to move ever in an expansive fashion, bringing in more and more countries.

We indicated that we would do an analysis of all the criteria related to visas and to passports, the security of documentation. Once we complete that, we would make a decision. That decision would stand for about a year to two years, after which we would then re-evaluate our position. We would do that in consultation with the authorities that the Chair would know quite well, foreign affairs, international trade, CSIS, the RCMP, all those that are concerned with the security of persons and the security of documentation, to ensure that we could allow for the free flow of people, again always keeping in mind the security needs of Canadians.

However, we need to keep in mind that the relationships of the European nations one to the other really have very little bearing on their relationship with us. They have certain obligations to the Schengen agreement, but that does not apply to us. However, we take it into consideration as we do our assessment.

We hope to arrive at a normalization of visa permissions and restrictions in due course, but we will take all the appropriate considerations into balance first.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, next, I would like to address measures to assist foreign trained workers.

All too often we have heard stories from friends and neighbours who have immigrated to our country about how they are disqualified from working in the field in which they were educated in their own countries. I have met many constituents who have degrees in medicine, health care and engineering, whose degrees are not recognized in Canada and could only gain employment in their area of specialty if they were to retrain at Canadian educational institutions. Having families to take care of, these highly trained immigrants often taken on menial jobs, such as driving cabs, to sustain their families, as they set aside their retraining. Over time, frustration sets in as they realize they may never work in their area of specialty in their new homeland, Canada.

This has been a longstanding problem. What has the government done to ameliorate this particular situation?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Chair, recently, the government announced the internationally-trained worker initiative. This initiative is a comprehensive and integrated strategy in which the Government of Canada is working inter-departmentally with about 14 or 15 departments which have jurisdiction in certain areas. We are working with provinces and specific regulatory bodies. For example, with physicians, we have just set up an international medical graduate system in which they are providing a pan-Canadian assessment model. They have a website these doctors can go to so they can assess themselves and get ready for their exams.

The Minister of Health, which is one of the departments participating, has announced $75 million in order to help these doctors to move quickly into getting residency places specifically for foreign-trained physicians across the country. This is going to be, again, used by the provinces that are responsible for getting that training moving.

I want to quickly say that in Ontario, some of that money has been used to assess 550 physicians who are living there right now and who are foreign trained.

This is exactly what we are doing with that initiative.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, next I would like to address the issue of denaturalization and deportation.

The parliamentary committee on citizenship and immigration has held hearings across Canada on this issue. Although it only seems to directly affect a handful of people in Canada, it in fact affects all of us. It devalues the citizenship of all Canadians when Canadians, by choice, those who have immigrated to our country, do not have the same rights as Canadians by birth.

The existing process which allows citizenship to be removed by in-camera, secret meetings of the special committee of cabinet, runs contrary to the rules and intent of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When citizens' rights are taken away from them, ostensibly for crimes committed or for the safety of our society, it should only be done by a judicial process and not a political process. When people say our judicial process is too costly and too slow, I like to tell them there is a cost, but it is a cost society has to bear if it is to be a just and civil society.

It is high time that our present system of de-naturalization and deportation, a relic from pre-charter rights days, be consigned to the dusty shelves of the Library of Parliament archives.

I am sure the minister looks forward to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee on citizenship and immigration, recommendations that we hope will guarantee all Canadians, whether they are Canadian by birth or by choice, are treated equally by our laws and are treated equally before our courts.

In the minister's short term in citizenship and immigration he has moved quickly on a number of files. Could he comment on the issue I have just raised. When will a new citizenship act be forthcoming?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I have a particular attachment to Canadian citizenship. I value it perhaps as much as the next person and perhaps more, in part because I had to swear allegiance to Canada and acquire that citizenship.

I am proud to say that my grandfather who lived here at the turn of the 19th century was a Canadian citizen. He had been a British subject prior to that. He conferred that same status on to my mother. I would have had it had I not been born someplace else. However, the circumstances allowed me to apply for citizenship.

In terms of two levels of citizenship, we just need to take a look at some of the members here in the House right now. Six were born outside the country. Two more were second generation. Such is the value of our citizenship that those who were born elsewhere can take a seat in the House. I have been fortunate enough to be called to cabinet. I joked earlier about the shelf life of people in my position, but the fact of the matter is that this is a wonderful place that values citizenship. It allows us all the opportunity to come, to be a part of, to be shareholders this great enterprise and to be able to make some of those decisions.

How do we lose our citizenship? We lose it if we acquire it by fraudulent means. That means that we must have misrepresented the case that qualified us to be here and to become permanent residents or to acquire citizenship. I do not think anybody would suggest that if it was acquired fraudulently, that it should be retained. Does the process require a series of judicial mechanisms? Perhaps. The only way people can lose their citizenship is by misrepresenting their case. Bill C-18, a bill that died on the order paper, did have that judicial process.

When will I present another bill? It will be up to members tomorrow night I guess.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to come back to an issue that was raised earlier by a colleague and it dealt with our present point system for immigration.

Does the minister feel that perhaps our point system is working at cross purposes with CIDA? CIDA does a lot of funding of educational projects in developing countries. In those same countries, we skim off their educated elite, often beneficiaries of CIDA programs, because our point system gives priority to those who are highly educated such as doctors and engineers. These are places in the world where they seriously need doctors and engineers.

Is there any thought to changing our point system, especially when it relates to developing countries, to ensure that we are not working at cross purposes and taking professionals away from those countries that sorely need them?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, we cannot object to those who want to come to Canada to choose a better life, no matter what their background; however, let me go to the issue of the point system.

From time to time Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in consultation with all of its other related departments, and in complete awareness, hopefully, of the conditions in Canada, will have occasion to change the point system, so that those who are invited into Canada or are in fact recruited into Canada meet the requirements that the economy dictates.

Keeping that in mind, I guess that I can say yes, the department is always looking at ways to fine tune the system, so that it reflects the needs of the moment, but that process does not happen overnight. It takes some consultation, in which we are engaged, and then we make a decision. It goes through a process itself in order to make the point system and Parliament is always engaged at the end about what we do.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would like to echo the minister's sentiments that everyone should have an equal opportunity. Unfortunately, the point system, in the way it is structured, does not provide for that because certain categories of people are given preference, namely those who are highly educated.

I would like to move on to another category I am concerned about. It is the category that allows people to invest in our economy amounts of $250,000 plus. This provides a fast track method to citizenship in our country.

Are we contemplating looking at the countries from which we encourage this sort of economic migration to our country and people who have the ability to pay their way. A number of third world countries have very corrupt regimes. There is an index that lists countries according to corruption levels. Is there any thought as to whether or not we should be looking for that type of immigrant from those particular countries to be fast tracked to Canada?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the investment category or the business class category for immigration is not designed to give people fast track to citizenship. It is really an opportunity for people to come here and make an investment, and thereby qualify for permanent residency. Once the residency is established, the clock starts ticking as a qualification and a qualifier for citizenship.

We must always do our due diligence with respect to any of those who make an investment in the country or who bring particular skills into the country. That due diligence, with respect to those who come to make a cash investment, has do with the accounting system we use, and we need to see that it is bona fide.

The idea of the investor category was to have people come here, make an investment and create jobs. We need to see real and legitimate money. In terms of the other skilled workers, they have to bring their talents to bear on the economy as well. We bring all of those things together. There is not a process that allows anybody to circumvent the rules that apply to everybody else.

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

Mr. Chair, I am going to try out the opposition frontbench for this round of questioning and get the full experience of the House of Commons tonight.

A number of people have raised with the minister the question of a new Citizenship Act. We have seen three attempts by the government to bring in a new act. They were never given the kind of priority needed to actually make it through the process here in Parliament.

We have again had a request from the former minister to the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration that if we had spent time working last fall on getting some recommendations to her, that there would be a new act forthcoming in February. We know that there was a change in leadership. The current minister took over and has yet to fulfill the promise, both of the Speech from The Throne and of the former minister, to introduce that legislation.

I know that there is a common expression on that side of promises made, promises kept. When is the minister going to stand and say, promise made, promise kept on the introduction of a new Citizenship Act?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, let me thank the hon. member for acknowledging that we are keeping the promises that we make. He did acknowledge the fact that we have done some things. In the four short months that I have been here, I have already delivered on some of the promises or priorities that I set.

One of them, by the way, is that I asked, in my capacity as minister, for the member and other members of the committee to do some of their consultations across the country on a new Citizenship Act and to send to me the recommendations that they would like to see considered in the crafting of a Citizenship Act that would come before the committee and the House.

I would like to have a forward looking picture of that possibility, but that will depend on several members in the House tomorrow night and whether or not we will be able to do it.

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

Mr. Chair, when the minister was talking about how proud he was to be a minister and how he had been a naturalized Canadian, I was reminded of the experience of Michael Starr, who was the first cabinet minister who was not from a French or British background in Canada. He was actually from my home town of Oshawa, Ontario. He was the minister of labour in the Diefenbaker government.

My family were immigrants to Canada. I know how proud they were of the fact that Mr. Starr was made a cabinet minister, the first immigrant cabinet minister in the sense of having a non-British or non-French background. It was indeed something that was very important to many people in Oshawa and across Canada.

We have often heard that the government is committed to an annual target for immigration of 1% of the population. We are still nowhere near that. We are almost 100,000 short of that almost every year. Yet, we keep hearing that number of 1% bandied around. Does the government have any intention of bringing in a recommendation that would get us toward its often stated target of 1% of the population for immigration?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I had an occasion on Friday night to meet with a group of individuals who are experts in international migration. One of them is one of our own professors at Queen's who actually devised that 1% figure.

I asked where that number of 1% came from? Does it represent the net immigrants and the net number of migration? Does it represent the net number of people we bring in minus the birth rate, death rate, et cetera? He said that it seemed like a really good number. It has become part of the mythology around which much immigration policy is developed.

I do not think I have personally ever used the 1% number, but the 1% figure, as demographers would say, is what we require in order to keep our population current and to replace ourselves. We are in the process of establishing a range target, as I indicated in an earlier answer, for Parliament to consider, but we do it on the basis of a variety of figures, including a legal market assessment in terms of the capacity to process that many people.

So far, Parliament, in its wisdom, has said the range shall be 220,000 to 240,000 or 245,000. Until we get Parliament to change that view, the 1% figure will have to wait a little longer.

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

Mr. Chair, one of the other statistics that we hear often when we deal with immigration issues is that by 2011, all new labour force growth in Canada will come solely from immigration and that by the mid 2020s, all population growth in Canada will come solely from immigration.

I am wondering if the minister can correlate those two figures together. Are our annual targets of 220,000 or 240,000 enough to meet the 2011 situation? Does he accept that 2011 situation as impending and 2011 is not that far off? If we were to change our policy and increase our capacity to process immigration, we would need to make those adjustments soon. What are the plans of the department in that regard?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the member is right and I accept those figures. The challenge for us is not all immigration. I gave an indication earlier that this department is becoming much more a recruiter. It is becoming much more proactive and less of an administrative department even though it still needs to address the administrative requirements.

The reason it is not all citizenship and immigration is because those figures are also alarm bells for all government departments. They must understand the policy implications that would flow from those figures.

For example, provincial education departments around the country must be thinking about how they can meet these particular targets. If 70% of all new jobs created in the next five years are going to require post-secondary education and/or training, then why is it that we tolerate an early high school dropout rate that hovers around the 30% mark? If only 6% of all new jobs within five years are going to require less than a high school diploma, how can we tolerate the built-in structural unemployment that must be created when we have 6% of the jobs being sought after by 30% of the population? Of the 70% only 41% actually have post-secondary education.

Those challenges go across government departments and do not apply just to us. As I indicated earlier, one of my six priority items is to bring as many young men and women into our system through international student visas, so that we have the advantage of their desire and ambition to grow academically, materially and economically here in Canada.

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

Mr. Chair, another one of the policy decisions we often hear about is that there should be a 60-40 split in terms of 60% for economic immigrants and 40% for family class and refugees.

As the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration travelled across the country, it became increasingly apparent that there was also a divide in the happiness and ability to integrate between those two groups. The 60% of skilled immigrants are facing the terrible problems of foreign credential recognition. They were working in the fields that they got points for in the point system but are unable to work here in Canada. They are terribly frustrated and angry. We have heard from some immigrant agencies about the increasing anger and even the threat of violence in a lot of the situations where these agencies are working and how they have had to increase security precautions in their offices due to that.

At the same time we have heard the frustrations of families regarding family reunification even though we know that a lot of the people who enter Canada as part of family reunification are much happier. Families have been a great place to ensure quick integration. People are happy when they arrive here because they are being reunited with their families.

I want to ask the minister if there is any consideration being given to increasing the percentage of the split between family class and refugee immigration in recognition of the integration potential in that category and in the apparent greater happiness of the folks who immigrate under that category?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, we agree that the greater the happiness of the applicants who make Canada their home, the more productive and competitive they become and make a contribution to the entire common wheel. When we talk about the 60-40 split, and Parliament in its wisdom considers how that will be determined, we are conscious of course of the fact that the mix must invariably change.

In an earlier question one of my colleagues asked what would happen to the parent and grandparent category and whether it would go up or down? As long as we maintain the kinds of mixes that the member has identified of 60-40, one cannot help but think that the backlog in the family class will constantly go up. One only has to figure out the numbers. It is going to happen. It has nothing to do with bad service. It has nothing to do with bad administration. It has nothing to do with disinterested employees. It has everything to do with the way the numbers operate.

Parliament will have to consider in the mix whether it should be 60-40, whether the 60 should drop or rise or whether the 40 should drop or rise. In that context, we also have to take a look at the mix within the 40 and 60 and whether we are going to increase the range from the 220,000 or 240,000 and, perhaps as the member indicated earlier, bring it closer to the 1% mark, which is about 300,000. We will be looking at ranges and percentages within ranges as well.

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

Mr. Chair, I think it also has to do with the expectations that we raise among potential immigrants when we give them points for certain skills and education that are not fulfilled when they get to Canada, and also the promises we make about the possibilities of family reunification. Our policy needs to be in line with both those expectations and the promises we make that there is potential for reuniting with their families when they immigrate to Canada as skilled workers.

I want to ask about the private sponsorship program. We have heard tonight about refugee programs and how Canada is the envy of the world in refugee matters. Certainly the private sponsorship program has been one of those programs that has led to the reputation that Canada does have. In fact the United Nations Nansen medal was awarded to Canada largely because of the private sponsorship program.

There is a backlog of 12,000 applications in that program. The target is 3,000 to 4,000 a year. I do not think we met this in the past year. It is causing a lot of frustration among the potential sponsors in that program. These are people who are highly motivated to assist in refugee settlement and who are willing to take responsibility in an incredibly significant fashion to do that important work. It has been shown to be an incredibly successful way of ensuring the integration of refugees into Canadian society.

I wonder if the minister could explain what measures he is taking to end that backlog, especially given the fact that he has talked about how the number of refugees coming to Canada seems to be reduced, both by interdiction at airports overseas when people are moving toward Canada and also by the safe third country agreement.

It seems that we have managed to somehow reduce the number of refugees who have managed to get to Canada. Sometimes I think that the department and the minister seem to trumpet that as a good news story. I suspect for the people who are languishing in refugee camps or who are separated from family members who are still in refugee camps or in less than stellar situations, having fled conflict in the world, that interdiction and safe third country are not necessarily the best news stories around for them.

I am wondering what measures are being taken to ensure that the private sponsorship program continues to function and that the folks who are willing to participate in it get that opportunity soon.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, the Government of Canada values all of those men and women and those organizations which, through their altruism, are manifestations of those values that are typically Canadian as they sponsor many of these refugees.

There has been a problem, and I acknowledge that. In part it is because many of those who have made application for landing as refugees have not always met the criteria. There are many who have been identified as ineligible. I hate to give examples but I do it for illustrative purposes and I do not mean to tarnish anyone by it, but it is quite understandable that some of the current refugees are hoping that through private sponsorship they can get some of their relatives in, their next of kin. While that may be a legitimate objective on their part, it really does not fit the criteria of the private sponsorship of refugees.

What we have already planned for this year is a tripartite conference, including the Government of Canada, NGOs, private sponsors and the UNHCR in an effort to try to build the kinds of criteria and acceptance of criteria by all partners so that we can have a better outcome.

The other thing we have to keep in mind is that in many places where we would have some of the very legitimate applicants for refugees, we do have logistical problems that have nothing to do with us but are all indigenous to the territory, such as, the post office, other methods of collecting data and getting people from point A to point B. We are working on that and that is why we need to have the UNHCR involved.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Chair, we live in an age of migration. People from many different cultures with many different beliefs and a wide range of backgrounds and skills are on the move from one part of the globe to another. More and more people want to seek out the best possible country in which to live. They want to choose their home.

As such, Canada has increasingly become the destination of choice for many people, such as it was for me and my family over 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, I come from a little village of 300 families in Macedonia called Brajcino. In Toronto itself there are now over 400 families, over 1,200 people, from that one little village.

Over the last 20 years, Canada has witnessed an unprecedented period of sustained high levels of immigration. Since the 1980s Canada has admitted more than 4.5 million immigrants, with 236,000 newcomers in 2004 alone. As a result, there is an increased demand for Canadian citizenship. Clearly, there are several reasons to explain this increase.

We have had high immigration levels in the early 2000s, more than 225,000 per year. We know that about 80% of Canadian permanent residents apply for citizenship after living here for three years. As well, since the permanent resident card became mandatory for travelling on commercial carriers, many long term permanent residents are applying for citizenship.

Our neighbours to the south now require more from permanent residents of Canada when they seek admission than before. Additionally, some countries, such as India, have modified their policies on dual nationalities. Finally, there are those individuals who are simply seeking to solidify their relationship with Canada. They want to formally express their allegiance to our country and become Canadian.

We value those newcomers to Canada as they not only contribute to our cultural mosaic, but also help to make Canada more prosperous and internationally competitive.

We know that the minister and those before him have initiated measures to improve citizenship processing times. However, it appears that more is required. Could the minister tell us what he has done to ensure that individuals who want to become citizens of our country or who need proof of Canadian citizenship can have their request processed in a timely manner?

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am delighted to answer that question. We have about 170,000 brand new requests for citizenship every year. We have a very large number of applications for proofs of citizenship.

I indicated that in order to do this job properly, we need to have modern equipment and modern processes in place in order to respond expeditiously. All of that takes money. We have put in $69 million over the next two years in order to reduce the processing time. That $69 million does not go just for machinery. It does not go just toward putting people in place to process the files. It goes toward ensuring that justice, CSIS and the RCMP have the appropriate personnel in place to conduct the requisite checks and make the appropriate decisions that go with processing applications.

All of those funds do not go simply to Citizenship and Immigration Canada. They go to all of those other agencies that are important players in ensuring that when we accord citizenship it goes to the applicant who is one we would want as a shareholder in this great nation.

[Lui Temelkovski, Liberal, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Chair, have any countries shown an interest in studying the Canadian immigration system? We are known around the world as having one of the best immigration systems.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Chair, all countries are showing interest in our system. We are one of four countries in the world that actually has an open system. My good colleague and friend from Thunder Bay is asking me to answer the question. The answer is yes.