Rick Dykstra

[Questions on the Order Paper, June 1st, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for the fiscal year 2008-2009, 671 people who submitted a sponsorship application were reported to be in default for financial obligations.

Of the 671 people in default, 655 were subsequently found eligible to sponsor.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the passion and commitment the member for Trinity—Spadina has for this issue, she is deciding and determining to skip over the whole process that is involved.

Any individual who is under threat of deportation or is asked to return to his or her country of origin, that happens after a long period in which individuals have the opportunity to present their cases in a number of areas, as I outlined in my speech. Therefore, to conclude that an individual is sent home immediately after an investigation or a thorough review has been completed is not the case, and she knows it.

I guess it makes for some political hay to say that individuals are being treated in this manner but that is simply not the case. These processes are in place to ensure that fairness occurs for both those who have gotten married and for Canadians who have gone through this process before in a very legitimate fashion.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us have situations where folks come into our constituency office and have asked the legitimate question as to why a couple is being questioned on their commitment to each other and the fact that they have gotten married. There are obviously times when abuse has been determined and that these marriages are considered marriages of convenience.

The member makes a very important and significant addition to this discussion we are having this morning, which is that there are individuals within that bond of marriage who have been taken advantage of. They come into our constituency offices. I have had them in mine and I am sure members from all parties on both sides of the House have seen the same situations. Our system is also able to assist those individuals who were taken advantage of, who were not in a situation where the person they entered into a marriage with actually did so based on any fundamental relationship but did so simply because it gave the person the opportunity to set foot in our country.

As good as our system is, there are times when we have these situations to be true and they need to be addressed.

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand the member for Trinity—Spadina's point on this. On the one hand, she is suggesting that there are situations, even though the percentages are very low, where marriages of convenience have been determined but, on the other hand, she is asking why a couple would get married if they were not going to be committed to each other and that it was not a marriage of convenience.

What she is actually arguing is that our system currently works, that it does exactly what it is supposed to do. It is supposed to entrust within the ministry the opportunity to respond and investigate these cases in a very fair and forthright manner. All of us here in the House have had these issues to deal with and, for the most part, it has been determined that marriages that fall into this category are very legitimate and are approved. However, there are situations where this simply is not the case.

If the member for Trinity—Spadina is suggesting that we eliminate the investigation of this and simply trust couples to move in the right direction regarding marriage, it would be anything but a marriage of convenience. That is simply not possible because that would lead to further abuse of the system.

We have a system currently in place that is fair, equitable and probably the best system in the world, quite frankly, which is why it is filled to capacity and overcapacity. It is such a good system to work through. Why do we want to change something that actually has a fundamental way of properly doing an investigation that, at the end of the day, finds legitimacy in almost every aspect except for a limited number of cases?

[Committees of the House, May 26th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to actually speak against the motion proposed by the hon. member for Trinity—Spadina.

The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration has voted on a motion that would entitle any applicant to an automatic stay of removal and a work permit until a decision was rendered on their first in Canada spousal or common law sponsorship application.

We believe our current policies strike an appropriate balance between family reunification and maintaining program integrity. The hon. member's motion is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

Let me explain a bit about how our system works.

Family reunification is a key element of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. Keeping families together helps people integrate into Canadian society and contributes to their well-being and long-term success.

As members of the House are aware, all immigration applications are carefully examined to ensure they are bona fide. For spouse or common law partner applications in Canada, processes are in place to ensure that the relationship that forms the basis of the application is genuine and the application is legitimate.

According to the provisions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, spouses and common law partners of Canadian citizens and permanent residents who are already living in Canada may apply for permanent residence from within our country. In these instances, there are two types of cases: those who are in status and those who are out of status.

Spouses and common law partners who are already in Canada and who are in status may apply for permanent residence in the spouse or common law partner in Canada class. In order to be eligible under this class, applicants must have a bona fide relationship, live with their sponsoring spouse or common law partner in Canada and have legal temporary status in our country.

While their applications are being processed, spouses and common law partners can apply to maintain their temporary resident status. Applicants at this point undergo an initial eligibility assessment, also known as approval in principle. Once applicants have received an approval in principle they can remain in Canada and apply for open work permits.

This initial eligibility assessment plays an important role in preserving the integrity of Canada's immigration program. It ensures that Citizenship and Immigration Canada has determined that an applicant's relationship is genuine before he or she is eligible to apply for a work permit.

These are the measures already in place for people who are in status to stay in Canada while their application is in process. However, Canada's immigration system is even more generous than that. We have measures in place for individuals who are out of status to stay here permanently as well.

For spouses and common law partners who are in Canada without legal immigration status, a public policy was introduced in 2005 to allow these individuals, including failed refugee claimants, to apply and be processed in the in Canada class.

This policy was implemented to facilitate family reunification in cases where spouses and common law partners are already living in our country with a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident but who may have certain inadmissibilities that resulted in a lack of status. These inadmissibilities include, for example, having overstayed their temporary status, working or studying without being authorized to do so, or entering Canada without a valid passport, the required visa or other documentation. Like those who are already in status, these applicants will be allowed to apply for a work permit once they have obtained approval in principle.

In addition, should removal action be initiated against an applicant prior to an approval in principle decision, removals may be deferred for 60 days. This period facilitates the processing of their application to the approval in principle stage. In the majority of cases, this is more than enough time to process the application.

In some cases, individuals may not be eligible for this deferral. This applies to those who are ineligible for serious reasons, such as criminality, security, and violation of human rights, those who have previously avoided removal or those who apply to the spouse or common law partner in Canada class after they have been advised that they are ready to be removed.

In addition to this initial 60 day deferral or removal, once an applicant has obtained approval in principle, a stay of removal is invoked until a final decision is made on the application.

The current policy that facilitates family reunification applications and processing from within Canada is generous and flexible. In most cases, it allows people to stay in Canada while their applications are in process and once the bona fides of their application have been established it allows them to apply for an open work permit.

As I have outlined, the measures we already have in place make the hon. member's motion simply redundant, but it is more than that. Allowing automatic stays of removal together with automatic access to work permits to individuals applying for permanent residence through the spouse or common-law partner in Canada class could seriously undermine the integrity of Canada's immigration program.

Ours is an ethnically diverse and welcoming society and our immigration program is an attractive one, albeit one that is already working to its capacity. This motion would almost certainly lead to an increase in applications from individuals whose relationships might not be legitimate and who are seeking to remain in Canada through fraudulent means. Not only that, but we would also see an increase in individuals who want to delay their removal from Canada.

The government is diligent in ensuring that bona fide applications are processed in a timely fashion and maintaining Canada's commitment to family reunification. Moreover, the existing measures minimize the potential for abuse, and that is a critical point. They strike the appropriate balance between our family reunification goals and the need to maintain the integrity of our immigration system and program.

Based on the reasons outlined, I urge my colleagues in the House to vote against the motion by the member for Trinity—Spadina.

[Human Rights, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the ministry is always focused on ensuring that we deal as quickly as possible with any refugee claim that is put in this country. The member is also aware, as the House is aware, that the minister and the ministry are currently working on trying to do exactly what the member is speaking to in terms of our refugee reforms.

I appreciate the question. In fact, we are working on it.

[Mining Industry, May 15th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this week is National Mining Week, a time to recognize the important role that mining plays in the lives of Canadians.

Our government has given the mining industry access to credit and strong supportive tax and regulatory systems. Further, we are working with industry on the new Canada Mining Innovation Council, the corporate social responsibility centre of excellence and NRCan's green mining initiative, which will all help ensure that Canada remains a global mining giant.

It is hard to imagine a life without minerals and metals; every day we use and rely on products made from them. With Canada's abundance of minerals and metals, we have much to celebrate.

With the help of our government's actions and to make sure that we are securing the environment, the Canadian mining sector will lead the way through the economic downturn and is expected to rebound to continue to be one of Canada's biggest economic engines.

Miners and their families have a government that is helping their industry and is getting the job done for them.

[Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario Act, May 14th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to and discuss the implications of private member's Bill C-309.

The bill proposes, at a significant cost to the taxpayer, to create a new federal agency with its own deputy minister and with its own bureaucracy to administer economic development programs exclusively to northern Ontario. Bill C-309, in essence, aims to create an agency to do what FedNor, a program administered by Industry Canada, is already doing and doing quite well.

Communities and rural areas in northern Ontario continue to face challenges that affect the stability and the development of their economy, both in the short and in the long term. Some of these challenges include: geographic isolation from large urban markets to the south; limited telecommunications and transportation infrastructure; static or declining population; a high youth out-migration rate; lower than average employment growth; and limited ability and capacity to respond to the current global economic slowdown.

This great part of our country certainly deserves the support of Canada's government, and I am proud to say that FedNor has been leading the way for years.

Since its inception in 1987, FedNor has been operating successfully within Industry Canada. On a daily basis, FedNor staff work with a diverse client base in an effort to build a stronger and more prosperous northern Ontario. These clients include business leaders and professional groups in the areas of tourism, transportation, telecommunications, resource industries, small business, health research and education.

It appears that the intention of my hon. colleague, the member for Nipissing—Timiskaming in tabling this bill is to ensure that the government will provide the support that northern Ontario needs to continue to thrive. Today, FedNor is providing this support and it is doing so quite successfully, I might add.

To understand the implications of the bill, we need to turn the clock back just a bit.

In 1987 the federal economic development initiative for northern Ontario, FedNor, was created to serve the economic development needs of the northern part of this province. It was established as a program within Industry Canada, within its regional operations sector, where it still remains today.

It was in 1995, some eight years later, when Industry Canada, through FedNor, became responsible for administering the community futures program across rural Ontario.

In other regions, the community futures program is administered by the three existing regional development agencies in Canada: the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Western Economic Diversification and the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec.

What makes the community futures program unique is that each community futures organization counts on the expertise of volunteer boards made up of local residents who bring a variety of expertise to the table.

The community futures program builds on the philosophy that local residents are best positioned to make decisions about the future of their communities. The program has become a driving force for business and for community development across the province of Ontario.

We move some seven years later to 2004 when FedNor took on the responsibility of administering the new eastern Ontario development program. The success of this program can, in part, be attributed to the excellent administration and flexible management structure from which FedNor currently benefits by being part of Industry Canada.

In addition to the responsibilities I have mentioned, FedNor also administers funding for the economic development of official language minority communities in Ontario. This has involved coordinating consultations with our official language minority communities to identify gaps and to identify needs.

FedNor has taken a lead role in promoting the vitality of these communities by working with its community futures partners to bring about service improvements. These efforts are helping to ensure that the community futures development corporations have the support they need to meet the official language needs of their communities.

In the past, FedNor has administered other initiatives in Ontario,on behalf of the Government of Canada, such as the softwood industry community economic adjustment initiative.

[April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I certainly would not suggest that my son is the same age as the hon. member across. He is a lot younger. I am actually one of the younger guys on this side of the House. The member should be cautious on how old he is going to accuse me of being.

I want to be very clear. We made a four year commitment in every budget. In 2006, it was $1 billion in university and college infrastructure. In 2007, it was $800 million to ensure students would have the opportunity to access higher education. That was a 40% increase over what the previous government had cut way back in the early 1990s. We increased it by 40% and added to it to ensure there was an escalator clause so that we would not need to return to that issue again.

In 2008, we implemented, rejuvenated and enhanced the scholarship program. We set aside the millennium scholarship program and had long term sustainable funding for students, who could not afford it, to have access to university and college educations. In 2009, we again built on the scholarship programs and added more. Not only did we do that, we invested $2 billion--

[April 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his exuberance in delivering that question. It is very impressive. We have had a long week in the House of Commons and probably our youngest member is still going strong. I want to compliment him on that.

Perhaps the reason this means so much to him is if he were not in the House of Commons, he might be back in university and might have been able to take advantage of the scholarship programs we have provided for students.

The other part of his statement that I must comment on was he remark that the Conservatives were not interested in English literature or philosophy. I find that very ironic. My degree is in political philosophy. My son will enter university for his first term this fall and he will study English literature. Therefore, there are Conservatives who spend a lot of time dealing with literature and with philosophy. I wanted to ensure he was clear on that.

We need to take a look at some of the facts. If one takes time to examine our record as a government, it becomes very clear that our commitment to students has been firm from the very beginning. It becomes clear because we are committed across all disciplines, not just one or two.

Let us take a look at some facts. In 2007 we launched Canada's science and technology strategy, a strategy which explicitly recognizes that talented, skilled, creative people, people such as our bright young students, are a critical element to the success of our economy.

In line with the strategy's commitment to people, we expanded the Canada scholarship program, bringing our level of support from 4,000 to 5,000 students across all areas of study, with 2,600 of those supported through Social Sciences and Humanitarian Research Council, 1,600 supported through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and 800 supported through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

The expansion of the Canada graduate scholarships program announced in budget 2009 simply and in a very matter of fact way builds on our commitment. At a time of great need, and we are in that time, when our global economy is in the most synchronized recession of the post-war period, a time marked by the worst financial market crisis since the 1930s, we are taking clear and decisive action.

We are giving students alternatives to the weakening labour market. At the same time, we are ensuring they are fostering skills that are critical to our cultural fabric of our country and also to our economy's long-term success.

In total, 2,500 additional scholarships will be made available as a result of the temporary expansion of this CGS program. As members of the House are aware, and my colleague across the way should know this, 500 of these will be granted by the Social Sciences and Humanitarian Research Council to students pursuing degrees related to business, which are related very closely to our country's economic success. It is obvious that our commitment is across the entire spectrum.

Some members are choosing to ignore that fact, but through this program, the Social Sciences and Humanitarian Research Council will continue to award Canada graduate scholarships across a full range of social sciences and humanities disciplines.

All told, the council will award an expected 5,700 Canadian graduate scholarships over the next three years. Of these, 5,200 will be available in all areas of the social sciences and humanities. That represents 90%.

This government recognizes the important contributions of all social science and humanities disciplines to our prosperity and to our society.