Sergio Marchi

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting with my provincial counterparts in Ontario. For the first time the Ontario government has signalled an interest in entering into a federal-provincial agreement on immigration. Only three provinces do not have current agreements.

The government has signalled its intention to accept the request of the Ontario government and the Ontario government has made a request for federal assistance for resettlement.

Unlike the former government, this government is prepared to listen to Ontario's concerns. We will work with our provincial partners as well as those at the municipal level on behalf of all Canadians which is something the people want.

I simply said something that the hon. member and his party have been saying every day. We have a fixed amount of dollars available in the federal treasury. In fact, the member has made a campaign of talking about deficit reduction. I thought I was

being responsible in not only addressing it purely from an immigration viewpoint but also a fiscal one.

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as part of our immigration levels the government is committed to international obligations. The member rises from his seat today, as he did yesterday, and simply casts out of hand that we should not have had as many refugees in the country or we should not honour obligations with respect to allowing those individuals to have fair and speedy hearings.

What we did yesterday not only maintained our obligations under the United Nations High Commission on Refugees. We have encouraged private communities to sponsor refugees, not only because we believe there are more cost benefits in that they absorb settlement costs but also because when communities come forward prepared to accept refugees it is a celebration of what the program is all about.

The hon. member also spoke about welfare rolls. We should talk about facts as opposed to creating the perception and the myth that every refugee who comes to the country goes on welfare.

According to the Ontario government some 4 per cent of the 615,000 applications for social welfare assistance in Ontario alone in 1993 were refugee claimants. Within that figure there is some abuse this side is interested in, but I would urge the member to set the context of his deliberations.

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, in preparation for the 1994 levels that we tabled yesterday all provinces were consulted. Those consultations took place in 1993.

Not only were they consulted, but the member's own province as late as last week faxed us a list of designated classes that the business and economic communities of British Columbia would like us to bring in as independents. We have done that. Forty-four per cent of all immigrants in 1994 will be those selected based on the skills that our economy needs.

British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba have all requested certain trades and skills. We are trying to co-operate with the provinces so that we as one slice of immigration can have immigrants come to the country to fill economic niches that the federal government has designated in full co-operation with each and every single province.

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. Through the Chair, I would like to know-

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there is a Quebec-Canada immigration accord. Quebec has a selection with respect to independent and business immigration. Obviously it also assumes a family class and refugee class under the federal guideline.

The hon. member's party is suggesting that the figure be 150,000. I know what you are against but I also want to know what you are in favour of. If you want to cut 100,000 immigrants, as your party is advocating, I would like to know where you are going to cut. Are you going to cut from the family class since your party preaches-

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, a number of studies have been produced in terms of the relationship between net immigration and net economic benefit. In fact, if I were to say something, there probably would not be enough studies in the current time to correlate those two forces a little more precisely.

I know the Reform Party has often used and basically exclusively used the C. D. Howe report done by Daniel Stoffman as a compass for suggesting that it should be reduced to 150,000. Even in the C. D. Howe Institute report Mr. Stoffman concludes that, at the very worst, net immigration is neutral on the economic benefits that immigrants bring.

Compared to that we have the Economic Council of Canada that shows a $2,000 net benefit. We have the report by Dr. Rosalyn Kunin in 1991 who studied the economic impact of business. Between 1986 and 1990 she concluded that 80,000 new direct jobs were created, a contribution during that time of $3 billion to GDP.

I will conclude by saying that during that time 10 per cent of all business activity-and I would be more than happy to table this-across the country was created by business immigrants. There are studies that prove immigrants are not a weight on the country. We should be forging ahead with the knowledge that the immigration policy adds dynamism to the country.

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we tabled the immigration plan at three o'clock yesterday. At one o'clock we briefed my respective critics. At 12.28 yesterday on CP wire, without an iota of a figure being deposited, his hon. critic for immigration said the following:

Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read.

Before the hon. leader gets up and preaches and requests analyses from this side of the House, I ask him to check with his members so as not to suggest things that are not borne out in fact but are more borne out in fiction and mythology.

[Immigration, February 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we consulted Canadians in the last election. One of the commitments we made in the red book was a commitment to move our immigration policy toward a 1 per cent level. That commitment was not undertaken lightly. That commitment had the foresight of some study and analysis.

The Economic Council of Canada, for instance in its 1993 report, suggested moving toward 1 per cent and doing so gradually. It also said that the net economic impact of every immigrant is approximately $2,000. If we multiply that by the levels we are looking at, it is half a million dollars only in the calculation of net economic benefits to immigrants without talking about job creation and entrepreneurship.

We feel it is a balanced approach. We talked about reuniting families. We talked about bringing in skills that people in the country need and the skills that our economies require, as well as maintaining our international obligations toward those who legitimately seek our refuge as they do across the country.

Yes, we believe it is a balanced approach and on balance will help the country grow as former immigration movements have done.

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend from the Reform Party. I just wanted to respond to my Bloc critic who said that it was his understanding that he was to get the documents at noon. I believe my officials delivered them at one o'clock.

I want to tell the House that I told my officials to provide the reports to my critics at the traditional-

[Points Of Order, February 2nd, 1994]

I think the hon. member is absolutely correct. I had assumed because of the positioning of the member that he was a member of the Reform Party.

The issues that I raised still stand, but I stand corrected.