Joe Volpe

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

As I was saying, Mr. Chair, when we are going to make a distinction about whether it is revenues or fees, I acknowledge that there was a spike in revenues because of course we have a spike in applications, but there has been no increase in fees. The fees are divided into two parts: the application fee and of course as well the landing fee, which does not have to be paid until someone has landed.

That does not diminish the fact that we have a greater and greater number of applicants. We are in the business of processing all of them. We want to make sure that all those who want to come to this country and fit those criteria that we--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Let us get back to the facts, Mr. Chair--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, that is $1,500 because that is the amount of money in total that is sent with these applications--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I thought we were having a reasonable discussion and debate. We have to make sure that we understand exactly what it is that happens in the process. There is an application fee and then there is a landing fee, so when we are talking about $1,500 we are talking about the overall amount once everybody has landed. But that is not the amount of money that people necessarily have to put forward.

The idea is that, yes, this does take place, but over the course of the last four months that we have been here we have been addressing all of these concerns that have been highlighted by members of the committee. The committee members are right here with us. They did not hide. They did not run away. These are the people who have been working on this for many years and they have been providing feedback to people who are here.

The fees have not changed. They have not doubled. Nothing like that has happened. We have to be able to tell the facts, to tell the truth, so that when we are going to make a statement, whether it is for political purposes or not, it has to be accurate. There has been a spike in the amount of revenues, but not a spike--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, let me address some of these things. I guess I will have plenty of time to address some of the issues that were raised.

First, the permanent residency card processing is now at about four weeks and people can get something on an urgent basis in 48 hours. For those who are concerned about the accelerated process, people are actually putting resources and technology in place so that we can get these things done in a timely fashion. Just think about that: four weeks and then 48 hours for emergencies.

Second, the member wanted to know how many applications there are abroad in the backlog inventory for parents and grandparents. I indicated at the beginning of my remarks that there were about 110,000 people. I think the exact number is 105,677, but that number indicates people, it does not indicate applications. And of course we have to provide the appropriate health and security checks. That has all been done, but how have we done that already? We are not waiting for a new minister. We are not waiting for a new government--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, there are quite a number of questions there and all of them legitimate. I have already given some initial responses to a couple of them.

I would like to begin with the last question regarding the regularization of undocumented workers. I indicated that it was going to be one of the priority items that would drive my stay in this office. By the way, as an aside, and I do not mean to make light of it, but immigration ministers typically have a short shelf life. I hope that members will keep that in mind tomorrow when they vote because I want to prolong my shelf life a little longer. I have not accomplished all six priority items and I know members will want to help me get to that.

The member, who is the chair of the citizenship and immigration committee, knows full well that we are addressing undocumented workers. First, let us see how this happens. Undocumented workers are those who come here to fill a job that one of our own Canadians may not be in a position to fill. There are quite a few. They are in the garment industry, restaurant industry, entertainment industry, construction industry, food and food processing industry, and the pipeline and oil industry. They are virtually everywhere.

What happens? Many of our young men and women do not aspire to those jobs. They are in other positions. We are making a huge investment in this country at the federal and provincial levels in ensuring that our young men and women achieve a level of education that allows them to engage in value added professions.

Like the hon. member, I too had an opportunity to work by the sweat of my brow, as they say. My dad did not think I worked hard enough, so I ended up in this position. It is an ennobling thing to be able to work. Many of those industries are starved for workers. We do not produce them. Our birthrate is among the lowest in the world, not just the western world but the world. We are not reproducing ourselves. We are not providing the marketplace with people to work.

What happens? Employers look for workers wherever they can find them. They bring them here. The member is right. Many of these people would not pass the point system that we have put in place. Why? Because we have put in place a system that puts greater value on formal education, specialized training, and linguistic abilities no matter where it is received. We are not interested as much, or have not been recently, in those who can fill the jobs that other Canadians are unprepared to fill.

They come here and some would say that the situation is unhelpful, but the economy does need them. They are here. We have to deal with them. We have to regularize them. We have to bring them to a point where they can be like all others who are landed legitimately, and all others who have become productive and contributing members of our society. They are valued and ennobled. They have dignity and we need to treat them in that way.

I made that commitment. It was one of the first things that I said I would do. We would regularize those who are here. However, we must identify them where they are.

By nature those who are undocumented do not go around and say that they are undocumented. They do not tell us where they live, so if we find them, we could send them back. They do not do that. They actually go and work as many hours as they can. They labour. They get around the enforcement agencies that might be available and we want to bring them into the fold. We need to bring them into the fold because they are good for us. They help the economy. They generate society.

Mr. Chair, I do not know why you are rushing me because I have all of the answers--

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, when we sign a deal with any province, it is usually under a contribution agreement that has terms and conditions. We fully intend to ensure that our partners on the other side of the table adhere to the terms and conditions. We have a monitoring process and we will ensure that they meet that standard.

As to the first part of the question about whether there are people who land in Ontario, go elsewhere and, therefore, that elsewhere does not get the settlement and integration dollars, it is a dynamic in the country that speaks to the enormous potential that other people realize.

Rounded out, we have about 140,000 landings in Ontario every year. The vast majority of them end up in the city of greater Toronto. That means a city the size of Thunder Bay is replaced in Toronto every single year. Does that create an increased magnet for people to come to Ontario? Yes, perhaps it does. There is a certain dynamic, a critical mass of economy, culture and society. All these things come together. They create a certain formula and attract more and more people.

For each and every one of those people, yes, we have a particular formula that says there are integration and settlement dollars that accrue to the provincial jurisdiction in which these people land, but that is not an eternal lifelong settlement or integration dollar. It is defined in time.

When an individual moves, those funds do not follow but other funds follow. Whenever residency is established in a province, Canada health and social dollars accrue to that province. There is no taking away from Peter to pay Paul. The federal government uses these funds to provide greater flexibility and stability in the movement of people.

The member is right. The economy of Canada, if may I be blatantly partisan for a moment, is in good shape thanks in large measure to this government for its fiscal policies. Over the course of the last 12 years, we have had nine balanced budgets. The interest rates have gone down to the floor so one can actually own property now with mortgages that in some places are below 4%.

We have unemployment rates that in certain provinces like Alberta are below 4.5%. Good heavens, they are probably coming to Ontario and bringing people to Alberta. Why? Because they need people. They have to bring them everywhere they can. Do they need the integration dollars? No, they just need people. They are willing to pay people to work.

What we try to do is facilitate that, thanks in great measure to the good, sound economic and demographic policies of the government. Look at the wealth that is being created around the country. Who ever heard of unemployment rates at these levels? Nobody has. That is why people are moving from great, rich Ontario to even richer Alberta.

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, I cannot speak to the experience in any one particular province. I can tell the member that as a general rule the federal government is a service provider, but where it is not, when we use service providers we need to go to a process that is competitive, fair and transparent. Those are the elements upon which we operate when we deal with service providers that are not part of any of our departments.

In most cases these things work well. I thank the member for giving us an indication of situations that might not fit that category. We have not had, to my understanding, the kinds of negative experiences the member has indicated happened in one particular province.

I want to build on that. Just two weeks ago we entered into an arrangement with the province of Ontario and put in place certain measures that would be transferrable to other provinces, outside of Quebec. We put in place additional resources for settlement and integration services that would engage us in an environment where we would have to bring into the fold many more service providers with the expertise to help us achieve our larger national objectives.

It would be unfair to the Canadian public, some of whom are watching this debate tonight, to tell them that we would not go through a competitive, fair and transparent process when we are talking about utilizing public funds for a common good and a common goal.

[Supply, May 18th, 2005]

Mr. Chair, it is an interesting question, because the relationship we have with all legislation is that we think that legislation is supposed to serve the best interests of Canada. At the time the legislation was passed by Parliament--and it did not happen yesterday; it happened, as the hon. member said, two years ago--the question was, can we bring greater efficiency? Can we reduce the backlog? Can we deal with the refugee issues, with the refugee questions in the fashion that would accelerate the process? One of the first circumstances that people were contemplating was how can we diminish this?

We put our minds to it and said that if this was one of the things that we were going to do, we would take a look at it. Is it a just system in that if someone makes an application, has it considered and perhaps it is turned down, does that person have an opportunity to appeal? Yes, to the Federal Court. If the decision is negative again, they can have a pre-removal risk assessment. They can appeal that too. Through all the course of it, they can put forward a humanitarian compassionate application. All of this indicates there is protection for those who want to make an application.

The other part of the issue is, are we doing the right thing with this for all Canadians? We said that we should ensure that we have resources in place, first of all, to process the applications in a timely fashion. By the way, this is the fourth of one of my priorities and the member knows this well. Let us do this in a timely fashion. Let us be proactive. Let us take a look at some of the causes.

One of the things we did in the interim, as the member knows, is we signed a safe third country agreement with the United States. It did not make sense to a lot of people that 55% of all the refugee claimants would come through the United States. The United States is not one of the refugee producing nations in the world. It is not supposed to be considered as such. I am not being sarcastic, but the member understands what I mean. That safe third country agreement eliminated a lot of the things at the front end so that we could deal with those that are in the system in a much more appropriate fashion. When I say appropriate, what does that mean?

How does the international community view Canada's immigration and refugee system? The United Nations says that Canada has the best refugee determination system in the western world. The member is right. He wants to improve something, but let me remind the member that what he wants to improve is already considered to be the best.