:
Merci beaucoup. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I am pleased to be here today to present to the committee my department's Supplementary Estimates (C) for fiscal year 2010-2011.
I believe you know all of the senior officials who are here with me today.
[English]
Mr. Chairman, in 2010 Canada welcomed the highest number of immigrants in 57 years—281,000 permanent residents. We did so by focusing on economic immigrants who can work, invest, create wealth, and contribute to our prosperity.
Within the economic category, we will continue to balance admissions between federal skilled workers, who are now doing increasingly well financially according to some recent research we've done, and provincial nominees, who are helping to fill labour market gaps, while ensuring a better distribution of newcomers across Canada.
In the future we must select those immigrants who are most likely to succeed in the Canadian economy. To this end, today we are launching cross-country and online consultations on proposed changes to the federal skilled worker points system. We want advice from the public and indeed from you parliamentarians on how we can improve the points grid as a way of selecting those workers who will best integrate and contribute to our prosperity.
[Translation]
We also want to select those immigrants who are most likely to succeed in the Canadian economy. To this end, today we are launching cross-country and online consultations, seeking advice from the public—and indeed from parliamentarians—on proposed changes to the Federal Skilled Worker points system.
[English]
While we welcomed more economic immigrants last year, we also upheld our commitment to family reunification and to refugees. We will continue to do so in the future.
In 2011 we plan to receive even more newcomers through family reunification and more refugees than we did last year. I repeat, in 2011 we plan to receive more family class immigrants than we did in 2010. That's not a cut in family class, as some have inaccurately suggested; rather, it's an increase.
Within the family class we've opted to put wives, husbands, and children first. That reflects the priority of immigrants, of Canadians, and indeed of the Immigration Act. Therefore, we have slightly decreased the projected admissions range for parents and grandparents in order to allow for an increase in the number of spouses and children admitted this year. That means more dads, more moms, and more kids being reunited with their loved ones than in the past. That's, after all, the whole idea behind our policy of family reunification, which I believe is the most generous in the world among immigrant-receiving countries.
In the past few days there have been a number of myths and mistruths recklessly thrown around on the issue of family class immigration, so I'd like to give this committee the facts and some broader perspective on just how generous Canada's immigration policy is to families.
We've distributed to you, I believe, some charts and tables. This table that you have in front of you shows.... There are two primary categories of family class immigrants. One is called family class one. This is the highest priority under the Immigration Act. They are spouses and dependent children.
Mr. Chairman, the table simply shows you the two main categories of family class: family class one, spouses and dependent children; and family class four, parents and grandparents.
It shows you that the planning range last year for family class one, spouses and children, was between 42,000 and 45,000. We actually estimate to have landed just under 44,000.
This year we are increasing--repeat, increasing--the planning range for spouses and children, the priority category, to between 45,500 and 48,000.
Now, in order to accommodate that increase in spouses and children, we've had to have a modest reduction in the lower-priority category under the act, which is category FC4, parents and grandparents. Last year the planning range was 15,000 to 18,000, and this year the planning range is 13,000 to 17,500.
So in terms of the total family class that we're projecting this year in our planning range, last year it was between 57,000 and 63,000, and this year it's between 58,500 and 65,500.
This chart gives you a perspective on the two different categories. Green represents spouses and children; blue represents parents and grandparents. What you can see here is that we always have many more spouses and children than parents and grandparents, and the numbers are about consistent.
You'll also notice that our planning range, if we come in midway between our planning range this year, will actually exceed the average over the past decade in terms of family class. Most importantly, it will be going up, as you can see, from 2010 to 2011.
There's another element here that I think a lot of people lose track of. While we bring in people through these two categories, in fact the majority of people who arrive in Canada in a given year, under the economic categories, are actually not primary economic immigrants who we assessed according to their human capital, under the federal skilled worker program, the Canadian experience class, provincial nominee,
[Translation]
and the Quebec Skilled Worker Program, but rather dependants, that is spouses and children of primary immigrants.
[English]
They are primary immigrants. Here you will see families as a percentage of total immigrant admissions. The green bar represents primary immigrants. These are typically heads of households, typically primary economic immigrants. In some cases it might be a successful asylum claimant who has family members attached to his application. The purple bars represent family members. As you can see, the ratio is about two to one. On average, 65% of immigrants coming to Canada are actually family members.
It is kind of extraordinary if you see it in proportion. You'll see that the numbers are pretty consistent over the past 17 years.
Here you will see the same thing expressed in terms of absolute numbers. Last year, 2010, was the largest number for intake of immigrants in 57 years, overall, at 281,000, of whom 180,000 were family members, either family class or arriving with the primary immigrants who represented 101,000. You can see that, in fact, last year was the largest intake for family members of our immigration system in 30 years.
Finally, you can see here family members immigrating to Canada by year. You will see again that in 2010 we have the largest number of family members coming to Canada—here it shows you since 1993, but in fact it is in the past 30 years. The point here is that there are a lot of immigration policy experts criticizing Canada, saying that we don't put enough weight on human capital, on potential workers, taxpayers, and some people say there is too much emphasis on family. When I hear some critics say that we are actually cutting and slashing the family class, instead of falling for that kind of demagoguery we need to actually look at the numbers and put all of this in perspective.
The second issue I'd like to briefly address, Mr. Chairman, relates to settlement funding. We believe it's important to invest in the success of newcomers, so they can realize their potential. That's why our government, when it came to office, cut the right of landing fee in half. That has saved nearly $2,000 for the average family of four with two children over the age of 18. It has saved more than $300 million for immigrant families since 2006.
In addition, when we came to office we decided to triple the federal investment in settlement services, and over the past five years that represents an incremental investment of $1.4 billion that were not being invested in things like free language classes and other settlement services.
We have to make sure that those funds are going to where the immigrants are. Immigrant patterns change. Settlement patterns change. In fact, what we see is, for example, fewer immigrants going to Ontario—Toronto in particular—and more going to the prairie provinces and the Atlantic provinces. We have developed, in consultation with the provinces, a new settlement funding allocation formula based on objective criteria to ensure that all newcomers across Canada benefit from similar levels of service.
This has meant reducing funding levels in three provinces while increasing them in seven provinces and the three territories. For example, we have seen funding for Ontario more than triple since 2005, from $111 million to $390 million, while at the same time, the number of newcomers choosing to live in Ontario has fallen by 24% from 141,000 to 106,000. That is more and more money for fewer and fewer immigrants. On the flip side, Saskatchewan has seen more than a tripling of the number of immigrants and the settlement funding increases have not been able to keep pace. What we have is a new formula that will seek to equalize things over the next couple of years. It will result in increased settlement funding for Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut, and Quebec will also have an increase under its own accord and the automatic escalator within it.
This new formula will equalize funding at about $3,000 per immigrant, whereas in Ontario immigrants are now receiving about $3,500 per immigrant, as opposed to say $2,900 per immigrant in Saskatchewan. That's just not fair. We need fairness in settlement funding. That's why we've made these changes.
Some would say, well, why not just increase the overall budget to equalize the funding rather than reallocating it away from the overfunded areas? There are three very simple reasons. First, we've already increased the settlement budget by 300%. Second, this funding increase has not been matched by uptake in the number of clients; I saw one estimate that says there's been an increase of about 31%, notwithstanding a funding increase of 300%. And third, that would be an unjustifiable expense of, I estimate, something in the range of an additional $50 million tax dollars annually. That's money that we quite frankly don't have, and that we certainly can't reallocate from within our department. It would mean cutting immigration levels by reprofiling money from our aid base, which deals with actual immigration processing.
Now, even within Ontario there have been changes in settlement patterns. There are fewer newcomers arriving in Toronto, with a lot more going to York region, for example. So Toronto will get a relatively modest reduction in funding and York will get a huge increase in settlement funding, in the range of 43%.
I would make one last point, Mr. Chairman. There's been some coverage about some of the settlement provider organizations with whom we will not be continuing our contribution agreements.
We did a request for proposals. We received hundreds of proposals. We assessed them. Our public servants assessed them objectively. We also looked at past performance and efficiency.
We looked at, as you can see on these maps.... On the left, just there, it shows the number of settlement provider organizations in Toronto proper in about 2005. Here, on the right, are the settlement provider organizations located in Toronto this year, after these reallocations are done. You can see, then, how much more coverage there is. And in point of fact, there is some duplication. We don't want to waste tax dollars with duplication, so there has to be some rationalization.
Having said that, of the approximately 250 organizations that we've been funding, over 80% will continue in Ontario to receive the contribution agreement as partners with us. About 37 we have not continued because they just didn't meet the objectives, but there will be 30 new settlement provider organizations with whom we partner. They represent innovation and new ideas, which we think is a positive thing.
Mr. Chairman, the process of levels planning is not quick, it's not political, it's not arbitrary; it's a long arduous process. It takes about nine months. There are widespread consultations with provinces, academics, statisticians, stakeholders, employers, unions. All of that is fed into a process that is led by the department. They come forward.... Yes, ultimately the overall levels plan goes to cabinet; it is then presented to Parliament. But then the particular targets within it are assessed by the officials according to such factors as inventories and the number of applications.
Pulling the camera back, Mr. Oliphant has pointed to some employers wanting more federal skilled workers. Eight of the ten provinces want significantly more provincial nominees. Refugee advocates want more refugees. Many families in Canada want more family members, more parents and grandparents. You have all of these countervailing pressures, and one has to make choices.
The easy thing to do is sit on the sidelines and say this one should be higher and that one should be higher. What you would end up with is an immigration level that is unsustainable.
We now have the highest relative level of immigration in the developed world, with the largest level of intake last year in 57 years and the second-highest level of intake in nine decades. We had the majority of Canadians, 77%, in a poll last September say that immigration levels should either be kept the same or decreased. In Mr. Oliphant's own province of Ontario, only 15% say that overall levels should be increased. So we have to keep in mind public opinion. We ought not to be arrogant and dismiss it.
Taking all of that into account, we've come up with a plan that balances economic, family class, and humanitarian in a way that I think is the best response we can make to the expectations of people.
Thank you, Minister, for joining us today.
Since we are talking about appropriations, I would like to discuss the cost of the legal proceedings in connection with the so-called guerrilla war that the department is waging against French at the IRB in Montreal .
Most probably you read about this case in the newspapers. You may recall that an IRB hearing was being conducted in French and the interpreter working into French clearly was not qualified to do the job. In spite of everything, the IRB member allowed the hearing to continue. Ultimately, appeals were filed. As Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, you filed a brief with the Federal Court, defending IRB panels' use of interpreters who were not qualified to work into French.
I asked you the question before and you took up the same arguments that you presented in point 76 and in subsequent points in your brief, namely that there was no hard evidence that the translation provided by the IRB's interpreter contained errors and until evidence to the contrary was presented, the interpreter was deemed to be qualified.
I'm sorry if my introductory remarks are a little long, but I will give the minister ample time to respond.
I would like to read to you several excerpts from this hearing. I understand that your French is very good and so you will be able to appreciate the quality of the French. I do not want to be critical of the interpreter, who was merely doing his job. He even pointed out at the start of the hearing that he wasn't qualified, that he wasn't fully bilingual and that he didn't speak French fluently. This is just to give you an example of what your panels tolerate.
The interpreter said this in French: “Avant de audience, mon avocat était fait quelque paix.”
Later on, he went on to say this: “Je me souviens pas rien de mais quand je vois la date, c'est sûr que c'est le bon date. La signature, c'est mon signature, mais je me souviens pas quand et où j'étais allé pour cette document-là.”
So far, it's not that bad.
:
This is a perfect illustration of the type of interpretation problem that arose at the IRB, since the wonderful and talented House of Commons interpreters are obviously not able to translate that into English.
Elsewhere, the interpreter said: “Quand je fais la demande d'asile, j'ai utilisé la adresse permanente, mais dans autre adresse, ma famille habitait dans cette adresse-là. Mes parents habitaient dans cette adresse-là.”
To understand the real meaning, you'll have to listen to him in French—if you can manage to understand.
Later on, the interpreter said: “Ils sont moi aidés pas.”
The IRB member interjected: “Pardon?”
The interpreted repeated: “Ils sont moi aidés pas”, meaning “they did not help me.”
So then, the lawyer said in French: “Ils ne m'ont pas aidé.”
The interpreter incorrectly said: “Ils sont...Ils sont moi...Ils sont aidés pas, parce qu'ils ne savaient pas où pour aller pour chercher la document.”
A while later, the interpreter said: “Je suis blank.”
The IRB member said: “Je suis...”
The interpreter repeated: “Je suis blank.”
That prompted the IRB member to ask: ““What does that mean: “Je suis blank?” Does it mean: “Je ne me rappelle pas?”
The interpreter replied in French: “Maintenant, je ne me rappelle pas ni, mais si ça vient dans mémoire revient, je vous diserai.”
I could go on, but our time is limited, so I will stop there. Clearly, even though the interpreter assigned to this hearing had the very best of intentions, the IRB member made a serious mistake once again. He allowed someone who is not fluent in French to work as an interpreter on a case which could mean either life or death for a person, to interpret statements made in a foreign language.
That the IRB member made a mistake is one thing that we can accept However, you went to court as the minister and you paid lawyers to say that unless evidence to the contrary was presented, the interpreter was deemed to be qualified.
Should such an important determination as to whether a person is or is not a refugee be made on the basis of such a poor interpretation?
Ms. Chow is not able to be here today, so I'm happy to be here.
Thank you to the minister for coming here today.
Certainly the announcements that you made have created quite a reaction and a lot of interest. I would say there's been a very big reaction to some of the numbers you've been putting forward, and certainly to the service cuts. So I have a number of questions.
I'd like to know what funding formula you used for the cuts in Ontario and how the decision was made concerning the cuts in Toronto—what funding formula was used to do them. I'd also like to know whether your department recommended those cuts or whether this was a political decision that was made.
And by contrast—because I think there is a huge impact in the community, and we're hearing this every day from immigrant-serving agencies and communities who are now struggling—one thing that's very troubling is how much is being spent on advertising in your department. I'd like to ask you how much money has been spent on advertising since you became the minister. My understanding is that there has been a dramatic increase in the advertising, while on the other hand we're facing very serious cuts in immigrant communities, particularly in Ontario and particularly in Toronto
If you could answer those questions, I'd appreciate it.
I also have other questions about some of the numbers around parents and grandparents. I'm sure you're familiar with Mr. Kurland, who is an immigration lawyer in Vancouver. Based on his access to information and the slashed rates for parents and grandparents, he estimates that for 140,000 applicants who are already in the queue, your new numbers could mean now that a parent could wait for 13 years for a visa to Canada, if they were to apply today. That's clearly unacceptable in terms of wait times.
Your government has said repeatedly that the backlog is going to be cleaned up, that we won't have these incredible wait times. And yet, based on access to information and people who are very knowledgeable about this issue, we're faced with dramatically different information. So I think there's a huge problem there.
Those are the questions I have, if you could respond.
:
I may not recall every one of them.
The first question was what was the formula used to develop the new funding allocation for settlement services.
It's called the new settlement funding allocation formula. It was designed over the course of the past 18 months or so in consultation between our department and our provincial counterparts. The idea was to come up with a common national funding formula rather than arbitrarily set levels in each province.
The formula is based on the number of immigrants in each province and territory, giving additional weight for refugees, to account for their unique settlement needs. It includes a capacity-building amount for each jurisdiction, and it includes an amount set aside for the innovation fund. There's a lot more technical detail, and if you want, we can come back to it later.
All of that works out effectively to about $3,000 per immigrant funding, by 2012-13, in the nine provinces outside of Quebec. Quebec is a special case because of the Canada-Quebec immigration accord, of course. It was set aside as a separate case in 1992.
Was there any political involvement in these allocations?
No. Cabinet and I and the provincial ministers agreed on the funding formula, but then officials worked out exactly how it would be applied across the country. As I've indicated, it means an increase in funding in seven provinces and three territories, a decrease in Ontario, a nominal reduction in Nova Scotia, and a small reduction in British Columbia, because it has a smaller percentage of immigrants.
It's basically a reflection of the fact that immigrant settlement patterns have changed. Whereas 90% used to go to Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, now fewer than 75% are going to those three big cities, with the balance now going to essentially the Atlantic and prairie provinces. That's a good thing. We're getting better and more efficient distribution of newcomers across the country.
Help me. What was your next question?
Dr. Wong is quite right that we.... Let me make a very frank admission here. When the government decided to triple settlement funding levels in 2006, we were trying to get a rough parity for settlement services across the country vis-à-vis Quebec, which had been going up on this automatic escalator since 1992. Other provinces under the previous government had received no increases for 13 years. So we decided there needed to be some greater equity across the country.
The huge influx of new money into the settlement sector was so much so fast that in many places they couldn't actually deliver the services, and there wasn't a sufficient increase in enrolment in things like LINC, “language instruction for newcomers to Canada”. Giving you one example, our estimate is that in 2005 there were about 48,000 people enrolled in LINC classes, and by 2008, after tripling funds for those classes, there were about 53,000 people enrolled in those classes, a 300% increase in funding and about a 15% increase in enrolment.
This explains why, for example, some funds that were budgeted for settlement services in Ontario since 2005 actually lapsed. We put out requests for proposals and we didn't actually get enough proposals that were eligible under the terms and conditions of the government to fund settlement services. Similarly, even this year British Columbia—your province—has ended up lapsing some of the funds that we sent it to invest in language services. All of these things are clear indicators that, if anything, we have overbudgeted. We have overbudgeted the federal budget for settlement services.
Now, I know that for some folks you could never spend enough. So they see this kind of right-sizing of the settlement budget as a cut, this recalibration across the country so everyone is getting their fair share, when in fact we're actually bringing the budget much more in line with the demonstrated needs.
Here we have this challenge: not enough people enrolling in the services we're providing. That concerns me. Only about 25% of eligible permanent residents enrol in the free language classes that we provide. There are a lot for reasons for that. Some people are working very hard. Some parents are at home taking care of family.
That's why we're trying to find more innovative ways to provide the free language services, to increase the uptake, and to help newcomers improve their language proficiency in English or French. That's why we launched two years ago the language training voucher pilot project. We sent out, I believe, 3,000 certificates worth a nominal value—not a monetary value—of up to 3,000 hours of language training to immigrants in Nova Scotia, Ontario, and Alberta to test it. And we were very pleased with the results.
We released the preliminary results of the pilot project on vouchers a few months ago, and it showed that essentially the uptake on free language classes among those immigrants who received the vouchers in the mail was about twice as high as it was among the general population of immigrants. So what this is doing is saying to them directly, “Hey, you can get this free service.” And a lot of people took that voucher to a local service provider.
We're going to wait for the final study to come in. If the results are positive, I will ask the department to look at expanding it, for one reason in particular, and that is that we need to find some kind of mechanism to deal with the issue of secondary migration. A lot of immigrants arrive in parts of Canada and subsequently, according to the recent data we have, move to Alberta or British Columbia, but the dollars don't necessarily follow them. In theory at least, a voucher system will allow for the transferability of the money we've set aside for language services for particular immigrants, if they choose to move from one province to the next.
:
Well, Mr. Chairman, what I'll do is refer Mr. Wrzesnewskyj back to my previous testimony on this. I'd be happy to send him a letter once again confirming the increase between 2005 and 2009 of permanent resident landings from the Ukraine.
Secondly, the assertion that these are, as he suggests in a nefarious tone, secret targets is absurd. In fact, the government tables before Parliament our overall levels plan; it's public domain. The department then develops mission-by-mission targets.
What Mr. Wrzesnewskyj is referring to is, I believe, from an access to information request on the preliminary target, which was accessed through the access to information process. Those targets are subject to change over the course of the year.
But what I find frankly the most offensive about the nature of the question is the notion that we—elected officials, politicians—should be picking over every country in the world, in every one of our 60-some missions around the world, and picking what the numbers ought to be.
Mr. Chairman, this must be a process led and determined by our professional public service. They establish the targets based on their expert knowledge of where the resources are, what the inventories are, what the past demand has been, what future demand is likely to be. None of us, not even Mr. Wrzesnewskyj, has all of that information at our hands.
What I do know is that the total inventory of people in the FC4—parental and grandparental—category for Ukraine was, at the end of last year, 163 people and that we have been processing significant numbers. And of course the department will continue to monitor that and ensure that we have roughly equal processing times for all of the streams of immigration on a global basis.
:
I would like to talk to you about refugees' access under the Interim Federal Health Program to drugs in Quebec pharmacies.
First of all, I want to say that I'm pleased that a temporary agreement has been reached, that pharmacists are once again dispensing service and that talks have resumed with them. That is a positive development. That said, I think we both agree that a definitive solution must be found and an agreement concluded with pharmacists. I think everyone agrees that this agreement should cover the terms, procedures and administration process, and not affect the coverage provided as such.
Also, the spokesperson for the pharmacists needs to be determined. When the appeared before the committee, senior officials often told us that they wanted to negotiate on an individual basis with pharmacists. However, the Quebec Association of Pharmacy Owners, the AQPP, which represents Quebec pharmacists, has made it clear that it wants to be directly involved in these talks.
I think that is the right approach to take, for three reasons, the main one being that the AQPP is the union representing pharmacists and their bona fide representative.
Other agreements have already been negotiated between the AQPP and various departments, including, I believe, the departments of National Defence, Public Safety, Veterans Affairs and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. The federal government already recognizes this union as the bona fide representative of pharmacists. So then, reaching an agreement with this union would not be precedent-setting.
The best reason, in my estimation, is that an agreement like this would be binding on all AQPP members, that is on the 1,800 owner pharmacists in Quebec. A refugee living in Dolbeau or in Manicouagan would thus receive the same service because all pharmacists would be required to comply with the terms of the agreement reached with the AQPP.
In my opinion, the department would be much better off negotiating with one single party than separately with 1,800 pharmacists.
Where does the department stand on this matter?
:
You know, I think this is an important point. What we're trying to do with the new federal settlement funding formula is ensure equal treatment of newcomers across the country. Newcomers in one province ought not to be receiving more services than in another; they're not worth more than immigrants in another region. And what we're trying to do is equalize this.
Right now, the per-immigrant settlement funding for Ontario, in the current fiscal year, is about $3,500 per immigrant, and in Alberta it's $2,700 per immigrant. That's an $800 difference that puts your immigrants, in your constituency, at a disadvantage. As a result of these changes, this will be equalized, more or less, starting next year.
I'd also point out to my friends in Ontario that a number of provinces, such as Manitoba, Alberta, and Saskatchewan, which have seen very significant increases in immigration in the past five years, have also stepped up to the plate and are investing significantly more in settlement services themselves. They regard themselves as partners with us in welcoming newcomers, in improving settlement services.
But based on our calculations—and there might be some dispute on this, because it's hard to define exactly what constitutes a settlement service—in 2005 Ontario was investing $94 million in settlement services and in 2009-10 about $133 million, a very nominal increase.
So we increased by over 300% in Ontario, and they've increased settlement services in their own province by 30%. Put it this way: I think the Government of Ontario would be a little more credible on this issue if they actually put their money where their mouth is.
I think, Ms. Grewal, you're pointing to a number of issues that I would categorize as reinforcing and defending the integrity of the immigration system. One positive step in that direction was the adoption of Bill , the balanced refugee reform act, which is in process; we're working towards its implementation later this year. That will, we believe, disincentivise false asylum seekers from abusing Canada's asylum system. In the end, it will result in fewer false asylum claims being filed in Canada, which will, we project, save taxpayers as much as $1.8 billion over five years.
Secondly, as you know, we brought in the cracking down on crooked immigration consultants act, which is now in the Senate. By the way, I encouraged the official opposition to ask Senator Jaffer to get that bill through the Senate. It received unanimous support. That will help us to deal with ghost consultants, make it a criminal offence for them to operate without being licensed immigration consultants of the recognized regulatory body, and we're also, as you know, working on the process of designating a regulatory body.
Also, it's very important that we address, as you mentioned, the issue of human smuggling. We believe that Bill represents a strong but balanced approach to addressing the smuggling networks, basically criminal gangs, that are targeting Canada. These are groups that don't really care about human life. They regard people as commodities. Particular syndicates used to run guns and other contraband into Sri Lanka during the civil war; now they're running people. Every year, thousands of people around the world die in smuggling operations. We've seen that recently in Britain, in Australia, in Mexico, the United States. Certainly one person passed away on the last vessel coming to Canada. These syndicates are using dangerous, decommissioned, leaky vessels to cross the Pacific Ocean.
I don't think any of us as parliamentarians, as Canadians, should be sanguine or indifferent about the threat that poses to human life, or indeed the integrity of our immigration system. That's why we have a balanced bill that seeks to send a message to the smuggling syndicates and their prospective customers, who after all are willing customers, that they shouldn't be willing to pay $30,000 to $45,000 to a smuggling syndicate to come to Canada. They should think twice about it. We think the five-year period in the bill does that, and we would call on the opposition to take seriously the expectation of Canadians that we will defend the integrity of our system against those who seek to abuse it.
:
I'd like to just follow up my earlier questions.
The information that came through access to information as reported on the CBC about the number of applicants who are already in the queue—about 140,000—and the estimates being made that a parent could wait about 13 years for a visa to Canada.... I want to ask you how you rationalize that. It seems to me to be a gross violation of the priority of family reunification, so I'd like to ask you that.
Also, you mentioned earlier that funding isn't given forever. But there is an issue of transition. I know, for example, that an agency such as the Afghan Association in Toronto were actually encouraged by the department to take a long-term lease. Their funding has been completely cut, so now they have a $300,000 debt. We're talking about a volunteer board.
I think it's very unfair that they should have to shoulder the department's bad planning on this, so I'd like to ask whether or not your department will be paying outstanding debts incurred, through the funding cuts, based on information that they received that they should be taking out long-term leases.
The third question I want to ask you is on the head tax on Chinese workers. Your government made an official apology, and that was very important. As we know, it was based on the head-tax payer and spouses. I think you're probably aware that there's still an ongoing issue about dependants. It's still a very active movement.
I want to ask you whether you consider that matter to be closed and that there will be nothing further done on it, or whether you consider that there is still room, and some work to be done, in addressing the dependants and subsequent generations.