Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate an important anniversary in the history of our Parliament and of the pioneer Chinese-Canadian community.

Sixty five years ago today, Parliament repealed the Chinese Immigration Act, also known as the Chinese Exclusion Act. In doing so, it brought an end to generations of discrimination against people of Chinese origin.

The Chinese Immigration Act was introduced in 1923 to prevent anyone from China from immigrating to Canada. The Act was passed despite the fact the Government had collected $23-million in head tax revenues from Chinese immigrants over 38 years.

This unjust law prevented anyone from China from immigrating to Canada. Chinese men who had already faced two decades of stigma remained separated from their families and were denied the rights of subjects of the Crown. This was unworthy of our country, considering that many of these men had helped unite the Dominion in building one of the most dangerous sections of the CPR through the Rockies.

Despite these injustices, Chinese immigrants remained steadfastly loyal. During the Second World War, a patriotic generation of Chinese-Canadians volunteered for the Canadian military. Serving bravely, they were generally not put into action until, late in the war, the British recruited them into the Special Operations Executive. They served with honour overseas in defending freedom and defeating fascism and Japanese imperialism.

One of those outstanding volunteers was Douglas Jung. Thanks in part to the service of men like Jung, the Dominion Government could no longer maintain its unjust policies. On May 14, 1947, the Chinese Immigration Act was repealed.

Today is the 65th anniversary of that historic achievement. On June 22, 2006, our Government helped bring a final end to that sad period, with the Prime Minister’s formal apology for the head tax and his expression of deep regret.

Since then, the Government has issued ex gratia symbolic payments to living head taxpayers, and widows of head taxpayers. Through the Community Historical Recognition Program, our Government has also approved over $4.5-million of projects in recognition of the injustice that Chinese-Canadians faced through the Head Tax and the Chinese Immigration Act.

In June of 1957, Douglas Jung became the first Canadian Member of Parliament of Asian and Chinese origin. He subsequently represented Canada at the United Nations.

We pay tribute to his spirit, and to the spirits of all those who rose up with dignity and overcame decades of discrimination against people of Chinese and Asian origin. A federal building in Vancouver was named the Douglas Jung Building in 2007.

In his maiden speech in the House of Commons, Douglas Jung said:

‘I am sure that honourable members on both sides will rejoice that we in this country have a system of government that does not extol its virtues by fanfare, but by expressing our belief in our principles by deeds and not words.’

On this 65th anniversary of the repeal of the Chinese Immigration Act, let us all call to mind those who overcame adversity to help build a Canada that is a nation of freedom, democracy and equality of opportunity for all.

VIDEO: Minister Kenney’s Statement on the 65th Anniversary of the Repeal of the Chinese Exclusion Act

Dear Sir:

Re: An attack on vulnerable refugees (May 9, 2012)

Doctors serve their patients and the public best when they focus their energy and skills on treating disease based on accurate diagnoses and facts. Unfortunately, Drs. Mark Tyndall, Steve Kravcik, and some of their colleagues seem to prefer political grandstanding and irresponsible rhetoric (such as Tyndall’s reference to patients “spitting up blood in the emergency room”) over accuracy and facts.

Contrary to the overheated claims of these self-proclaimed defenders of the public health, there is no change in Interim Federal Health coverage for treatments affecting public health and public safety. Treatment, including prescription medications, will continue to be provided to all asylum claimants for infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and HIV, and for other medications necessary to protect public health and safety, such as anti-psychotic drugs.

Nor is there any change to primary health care for the vast majority of asylum claimants, who will continue to have access to the full range of basic doctor and hospital services that all Canadians receive through their provincial health care system, including treatment for chronic disease. Perhaps most importantly, all asylum claimants are provided, free of charge, an Immigration Medical Exam, which screens all claimants for disease. This comprehensive check-up is more preventative health care than most Canadians receive on a regular basis. And, of course, if an asylum claimant is found to be a genuine refugee, he or she will then have access to the full benefits of the provincial health care system.

With respect to these cases – the vast majority of legitimate refugee cases – Dr. Tyndall and his colleagues are guilty of baseless fear-mongering.

What is changing is that bogus asylum seekers, including those whose claims have been formally rejected, will no longer receive, at taxpayer expense, enhanced health services such as eye and dental coverage that are unavailable to many ordinary Canadians.

Nor will asylum seekers from safe countries, such as the liberal democracies of the European Union or the United States, continue to receive the full range of basic and supplemental health care coverage, though they will still receive urgent or essential medical care, including hospital treatment, and any prescription drugs and treatment necessary to address a public health or safety risk, such as an infectious disease. These changes go hand-in-hand with the introduction of reforms to speed up the processing of asylum claims from safe countries, meaning that these asylum seekers will have their claims heard in a matter of weeks, rather than years, as is currently the case. The health coverage for these claimants is, therefore, only a short interim measure.

It is hardly “inconceivable and unethical,” as Tyndall claims, to stop the abuse of Canada’s generous and overburdened health care system by bogus asylum claimants. Especially by those that have already been rejected by our fair and independent refugee determination system but who refuse to return home, preferring to enjoy generous welfare and health care benefits that even honest, hard-working Canadians do not receive.

Sincerely,

Jason Kenney,
Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism

The NDP’s Immigration critic even tweeted a photograph of the group’s logo and praised its campaign to stop all deportations, including deportations of violent foreign criminals, war criminals, and bogus asylum claimants.

This is not the first time the NDP has lent its support to “No One Is Illegal”. Last May 28, NDP MP Jamie Nicholls attended a “No One Is Illegal” rally in Montreal, demanding immediate amnesty for all illegal immigrants and an end to deportations of foreign criminals.

Let’s be clear: “No One Is Illegal” is not simply another noisy activist group. They are hard-line, anti-Canadian extremists who:

• oppose all immigration laws;
• demand immediate amnesty for all illegal immigrants;
• support human smuggling;
• believe that there should be unlimited access to Canadian health care and welfare for everyone in the world who wants it;
• believe Canada (which they call “Kanada”) is illegitimate. In fact, No One Is Illegal organiser Luam Kidane said: “I don’t recognise and neither does No One Is Illegal that the Canadian state is a legitimate entity,” and further added that “Canada is an occupying state on colonised land, Turtle Island”;
• support the destruction of property as a protest against capitalism;
• and endorse terrorism against Israel.

While the NDP is attending rallies in support of an organization that doesn’t even believe Canada has a right to exist, our Conservative Government is focused on the real problems facing Canadians: creating jobs and growing the economy.

The NDP’s cheerleading for anarchists and anti-capitalist mobs is yet another example of the danger they pose to the Canadian economy.

Unlike the NDP, Conservatives believes in reforms to Canada’s immigration system to focus it on fuelling economic prosperity for our country.

—————————————————————————————————————–

Le NPD soutient le groupe radical et anarchiste No One Is Illegal

Le dimanche 18 mars, le porte-parole néo-démocrate sur l’immigration Don Davies a assisté à un rassemblement organisé par No One Is Illegal, un groupe radical et en faveur de l’immigration illégale.

Le porte-parole néo-démocrate a même affiché sur Twitter une photo du logo du groupe et a fait l’éloge de la campagne qu’il mène pour stopper toutes les déportations, y compris celles de criminels violents étrangers, de criminels de guerre et de faux demandeurs d’asile.

Ce n’est pas la première fois que le NPD apporte son soutien au groupe No One Is Illegal. Le 28 mai dernier, le député néo-démocrate Jamie Nicholls a assisté à un rassemblement du groupe à Montréal, réclamant l’amnistie immédiate pour tous les immigrants illégaux et la cessation de la déportation des criminels étrangers.

Soyons clairs : No One Is Illegal n’est pas qu’un simple autre groupe d’activistes qui aime faire du bruit. Il s’agit d’un groupe d’extrémistes intransigeants et anti-Canada qui :

• s’oppose à toutes les lois sur l’immigration ;
• réclame une amnistie immédiate pour tous les immigrants illégaux ;
• soutient le passage de clandestins ;
• croit que l’accès au système de santé et au bien-être social du Canada devrait être illimité pour quiconque veut en bénéficier dans le monde ;
• croit que le Canada (qu’il appelle Kanada) est illégitime. En fait, l’organisateur Luam Kidane a dit « Je ne reconnais pas, tout comme les autres activistes de No One Is Illegal, que l’État canadien est une entité légitime », ajoutant que « Le Canada est un État occupant sur une terre colonisée, Turtle Island » ;
• est en faveur de la destruction de la propriété comme forme de protestation contre le capitalisme ;
• soutient le terrorisme contre Israël.

Alors que le NPD assiste à des rassemblements soutenant une organisation qui ne croit même pas que le Canada a le droit d’exister, notre gouvernement conservateur se concentre sur les vrais problèmes des Canadiens : la création d’emplois et la croissance économique.

Le fait que le NPD soutienne des anarchistes et des gangs anticapitalistes n’est qu’un autre exemple du danger qu’il représente pour l’économie canadienne.

Contrairement au NPD, les Conservateurs croient en des réformes du système d’immigration canadien afin d’en faire un levier pour la prospérité économique de notre pays.

Minister Kenney on CBC’s The Current

Like many Canadians I am concerned with the rise of anti-Israel activities on campuses across Canada, culminating in the so-called ‘Israel Apartheid Week’ (IAW), which is often promoted in a manner that disregards the rights and safety of Jewish students and professors. 

Universities are meant to offer an environment in which academic discourse can take place freely. Jewish faculty and students have the right to engage in this debate without feeling the need to conceal their identity, or to self-censor.

The irony of this week cannot be overlooked.  While singling out the only liberal democracy in the Middle East for condemnation, the organizers of IAW ignore Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal slaughter of his own people and the suppression of basic human rights throughout many countries in the Middle East. 

Debate over Israeli policy is legitimate and encouraged through academic dialogue. Israel, as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, encourages such free exchanges of ideas.  However, there is a point at which well-intentioned debate is overrun by hatred and intolerance; creating a toxic environment that prevents meaningful dialogue on important issues from taking place.

The organizers of Israel Apartheid Week use the cover of academic freedom to demonize and delegitimize the State of Israel. In reality, this week is nothing more than an unbalanced attempt to paint Israel, and her supporters as racist. This week runs contrary to Canadian values of tolerance, mutual respect, and understanding.

As Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I call on all Canadians to reject anti-Semitism and all forms of racism, discrimination and intolerance, which are unacceptable and completely contrary to Canada’s fundamental values.

David Olive’s column on immigration (Skills shortage highlights faulty thinking on immigration, March 5, 2012) includes several major factual errors. 

He writes that “Ottawa has cut the inflow of immigrants from an annual 250,000 to 225,000, trapped by a recession-era mindset that is obsolete.”  The opposite is true.  The average intake of permanent residents under the previous Liberal government (from 1994 to 2005) was 222,000.  Since taking office in 2006, our government has welcomed an average of 254,000 new permanent residents per year, an increase of 14%. This represents the highest sustained level of immigration in Canadian history, and the highest per capita level of immigration in the developed world, adding 0.8% to our population per year.

Prime Minister Harper has repeatedly pointed out that, unlike previous Canadian governments, and many other developed countries, we maintained high immigration levels throughout the recession precisely because we understand that one of the greatest challenges facing the Canadian economy is a large and growing labour shortage.  For example, in 2010 we welcomed 280,000 newcomers, the highest number in six decades, notwithstanding the global economic downturn.  By comparison, the Trudeau government slashed immigration levels from 143,000 to under 90,000 during the recession in the early 1980s, and the Chretien government cut intake from over 257,000 to 174,000 in the mid 1990s.

Mr. Olive also writes that “Ottawa has slashed its funding of immigrant settlement services for Ontario by $70 million.” Again, the opposite is true.  The $70 million to which he refers has been re-allocated to other parts of the country, where immigration levels have increased massively, to ensure fair per capita funding across Canada. But even after that change, we are spending three times more on settlement services in Ontario than the previous government did in 2005, moving from $111 million to $347 million.  That’s a huge increase, not a cut.

Finally, he says that we “haven’t even tried” to tackle the problem of credential recognition.  The federal government cannot dictate policies to provincial professional bodies or provinces. But we have done a great deal to address this longstanding challenge, creating the Foreign Credential Referral Office to help immigrants prepare for credential assessment before they leave for Canada; investing $50 million in the development of a national framework for faster and simpler licensing of foreign credentials; and most recently launching micro-loan programs to help newcomers upgrade their skills, and pay for assessment fees. 

Mr. Olive is right to point out the importance of immigration to our economic future, and the need to better align our immigration system with labour markets.  But he is profoundly wrong to smear our government’s unprecedented, pro-immigration record as being “nativist” based on glaring factual errors.

 Sincerely,

 Hon. Jason Kenney, PC, MP

Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism

At the National Metropolis Conference

Toronto, Ontario

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Check against delivery

I am grateful for the chance to address a conference whose concerns intersect with so many of my own as Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.

I note that the focus of this year’s Metropolis conference is “Future Immigration Policies: Challenges and Opportunities for Canada”.  I can assure you that I spend most of my waking hours – and even some of my non-waking hours – thinking about this very issue.

In particular, I would like to talk about where our immigration system used to be, what we have been doing to improve that system, our plans for where we want to go in future, and how all of this is tied together by an overarching vision of a modern immigration system that works for Canada, and for newcomers.

We have been blessed in this country with a virtuous circle when it comes to immigration:

Newcomers want to come to Canada because we are a free, prosperous, peaceful, and pluralist country.  And we are a free, prosperous, peaceful, and pluralist country thanks in part to the newcomers we have welcomed to Canada over the years, many of whom have had direct experience of violence, state repression and collectivism and who have no wish to see those illiberal forces take root in Canada.

But we always need to be vigilant to ensure that the immigration system continues to function in our national interest.  And we are always looking to make improvements to the system so that it serves Canada better.  

As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman has written:

“We have gone from the Iron Age to the Industrial Age to the Information Age to the Talent Age, and countries that make it easy to draw in human talent will have a distinct advantage today.”

By opening our doors to immigrants with qualifications that can be easily recognized in Canada and the skills to immediately fill acute labour market needs, our Government will give Canada the “distinct advantage” we need to keep our economy strong and our societies vibrant and safe.

We want a system that is attractive to an engineering graduate of India Institute of Technology or a biochemist from Tsinghua University.  We want a “real time” immigration system that allows potential immigrants to apply to come to Canada on January 1^st, arrive in Winnipeg on June 1^st and be on the job, working and contributing to Canada by Canada Day.

Rationale for Reform

I have described the immigration system that we want.  But it is clearly not the immigration system we have, and although we are moving quickly with much-needed reforms, we still have some way to go to get to where we need to be.

Before the government began our process of reform, we identified many symptoms of an immigration system in need of change.  I will share with you some of the most critical ones.

For decades, until very recently, Canada saw a continuous, year-after-year decline in economic results for immigrants.  Employment rates for immigrants were on a long, steady decline, as were income levels.

All too often, being a newcomer to Canada meant being poorer, more likely to be underemployed, and less equipped for a modern economy and society than someone born in Canada.

To pick one of many examples, results from the 2006 census showed that immigrants who arrived in Canada in 2004 were more than three times as likely to have low incomes.  Fully 34.1 percent of newcomers fell into the low-income category of the census, as compared to a rate of 9.7 percent for all Canadians.

We’ve also seen, in recent years, the paradox of having chronic labour shortages in parts of Canada, coupled with high immigration levels that haven’t been properly addressing those shortages.

Immigrants would come to Canada – usually settling in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, regardless of whether or not there were better employment opportunities elsewhere – and we would we let them in without ensuring they had the qualifications or flexible skills that would allow them to best integrate into our modern, ever-changing job market.

There are many other symptoms.  

We know from years of studies that official language proficiency is among the best predictors of newcomer success in Canada.  At the same time, studies showed the English and French literacy levels of immigrants were below average compared with those Canadians born here.

Sixty per cent of newcomers were below Level 3 on the International Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, which is considered the minimum skill level necessary to meet the challenges of today’s world.

Looming over all of these issues was the problem of immense backlogs clogging up the entire immigration and refugee systems.  Not only were our selection criteria not ensuring the best outcomes for our society and our economy, we were also allowing wait times to bring the system to a slow crawl.

Imagine this.  On February 1, 2001 a Canadian visa officer would go to work in Damascus.  He would see in front of him an application from someone claiming to be a 45 year-old Professor with 15 years experience teaching Persian history.  The officer would look at a rigid point grid and do a rote calculation, giving this person points for age, job experience, and education, regardless of whether the candidate’s specific job experience and education matched a labour market shortage in Canada.  Seven years later, after waiting in the queue, this person would arrive in Toronto, usually without a job.

Seven years later, a person without in-demand skills arrives in Canada.  Is it any surprise that such an applicant would not be able to find a job or integrate easily?

Any impartial observer of the immigration system we had for the last decade would come to the same conclusion: It was an unacceptable state of affairs.

Remedies to Fix Policy Mistakes of the Past 

So what have we done about all of this?  Obviously, we need immigrants who are filling unfilled jobs, and that’s our priority.  After all, the vast majority of newcomers come here to pursue economic opportunities.  And, if they are working, immigrants are able to support themselves and their families, integrate into their communities, and pay taxes to fund our generous social programs.

The good news is that, in the past several years, we’ve begun to turn the corner.  We have addressed some of the problems associated with the declining economic performance of immigrants and the growing inequality between newcomers and those born in Canada.

The data show that immigrants selected for their human capital, immigrants with pre-arranged offers of employment, and immigrants with Canadian education and experience have much better economic outcomes.

And that is why we have focused on selecting immigrants who meet these criteria.

As some of you know, in November 2008, we introduced the Action Plan for Faster Immigration.  Before this time, Canada was obliged to process every immigration application we received – even if it meant creating a large backlog that had swelled to 641,000 federal skilled worker applicants.  Each of those applicants could expect to wait at least six years before they could come to Canada … obviously this was impractical and frustrating.

The Action Plan has paid off.  In fact, through the judicious use of limits on new applications in certain categories, the backlog of old applications in the Federal Skilled Worker category has been cut to less than 309,000 applicants since the Action Plan took effect – a reduction of more than 50 percent.

Instead of waiting six or seven years under the old program, an engineer applying to come to Canada today under the new program could arrive in Halifax in less than 11 months.

But we can do better, and we will do better. 

One huge outstanding problem is ensuring that foreign credentials are quickly and fairly assessed in Canada.

We’ve made some progress in this area. We now have clear processes in place for eight regulated occupations, which means we can tell workers in these occupations how their credentials compare to Canadian standards within a year of their application.  And, by the end of this year, we expect to add six additional regulated occupations to that list.

While much work remains in this area – work that is already well underway – this is a significant milestone and a great improvement over the previous years-long wait for foreign credentials recognition.

We also know that greater proficiency in English and French correlates with success both economically and socially.  Those with limited English or French abilities are more likely to earn less, be unemployed, and depend on government support.  So we’ve introduced more stringent criteria for federal skilled workers to demonstrate their language skills.

As a result, the number of skilled workers we admit who speak English has gone up, from just over 41,000 in 2001 to more than 49,000 in 2010. Likewise, the number of workers admitted who speak French has also increased, from just over 3,300 to almost 4,000.  What’s more impressive, the number who arrived speaking both languages has doubled, from around 7,500 to more than 16,000.

We also know from our research that federal skilled workers with arranged employment when they arrive do much better than those who don’t.  Data show that federal skilled workers with an arranged employment offer earned an average salary of $79,200 three years after landing, compared to $44,200 for those without.  So we’re working to make this program more accessible to employers, by simplifying the process to hire the skilled workers they need and to get them here sooner.

Finally, in 2008, we introduced the Canadian Experience Class. This program allows temporary foreign workers and international students with skilled work experience and/or education in Canada to apply for permanent residence.  Once again, this change was driven by common sense backed by hard data, which tell us that immigrants who already have some Canadian work experience or education do much better than those who don’t. 

We hope that a growing CEC program will help Canadian universities to recruit in-demand international students, and then will help Canada retain them after they graduate by providing a pathway to permanent residency and eventual citizenship.

These changes are all improvements, but they are just a start.  In 2011, we launched public consultations on further changes to the selection criteria for federal skilled workers, changes that would place even more emphasis on language ability and youth, and reduce barriers for skilled tradesmen to immigrate to Canada.  We received a lot of excellent feedback on our proposed changes, and right now we’re finalizing the new FSW program’s point grid, which we hope to announce later this year.

While the FSW program has been the flagship program for economic immigration to Canada for decades, and will continue to be an important source of economic immigration after the changes we will unveil later this year, it is no longer the only, or even the dominant, stream.  

Over the last few years, we have admitted an increasing number of immigrants through the provincial nominee programs.  Most of you probably know that the provincial nominee programs enable provinces and territories to nominate permanent residents who meet their local labour market or regional economic needs.

A recent evaluation of this program found that provincial nominees are generally doing well, and that their economic performance is comparable to federal skilled workers.  The program is helping to address local and regional labour market needs.

The PNP has grown almost sevenfold since 2004, and currently accounts for over 36,000 new permanent residents per year, with room for up to 45,000 in 2012.  In addition to reducing wait-times for much-needed immigrants, the expansion of the PNPs has meant a much better distribution of immigrants across Canada. 

It used to be that 90 per cent of newcomers settled in Greater Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, and few went to where some of the best job opportunities were, including in the booming Prairie Provinces.  In this way, the PNP has helped to address acute labour shortages across the country in a way the FSW program never did. 

Today, 26 % of all economic immigrants are destined for provinces other than the traditional destinations of BC, Ontario and Quebec, compared to only 11 % in 1997.  Newcomers are also increasingly settling in communities that are outside the big urban centres. 

By better selecting immigrants with the traits needed to succeed in our economy, we’ve made some progress in improving the outcomes for federal skilled workers.  And this will continue to improve as we make further changes to the FSW and PN programs.  While this is good news, we must remember that only about 30 percent of all immigrants are actually selected for their skills.  The remainder – roughly two thirds of all immigrants – are either accompanying dependents, sponsored family members, or arrive under our humanitarian classes, which includes refugees.

Of course, we must also recognize the importance of family immigration and ensuring that Canada abides by its humanitarian obligations.  We want to ensure that even non-economic newcomers can also integrate as quickly as possible and reach their full potential. That is why settlement services that help newcomers improve their language skills and find employment are so important. These and other services help newcomers get the vital tools needed to succeed in our economy and society.

And that is why, since 2006, the Government has more than tripled spending on settlement services for immigrants outside Quebec, from just under $200 million in 2006 to over $600 million for next fiscal year.

So what do all of these reforms amount to?  Essentially, what we are trying to do is fix the policy mistakes of the past and avoid repeating them in the future.  So far, our reforms have helped to improve the economic outcomes of immigrants; they have helped to spread the benefits of immigration across the country; and they have helped to get immigrants here sooner by cutting backlogs.  But big issues remain, and there’s still so much more work to be done.

Looking Forward

To begin, as I noted earlier, newcomers continue to earn less than native-born Canadians and continue to be underemployed at higher rates.  We know that many immigrants come here with professional backgrounds and high levels of education, at least on paper, only to be stuck in survival-type jobs just to pay their bills.

We must also address the paradox that I mentioned earlier with regards to our country’s unemployment rates.  Even during the recession, we continued to experience labour market shortages, particularly in the West.  So we must absolutely find ways to help all Canadians, including immigrants who are unemployed or underemployed, move towards productive employment.

We don’t want to bring people to Canada only to have them face years of unemployment or underemployment.  We owe it to newcomers to ensure that there are opportunities for them to use their skills when they arrive.  We also owe it to Canada.  If we succeed, even in part, Canada stands to benefit from the human capital of hundreds of thousands of foreign trained professionals. 

One part of the solution is quite simple: we must make better choices.  We must select immigrants who have the skills and traits we know will lead to their success, and qualifications that are already recognized in Canada, or can be recognized in a short time.

We need immigrants with adaptable skills who can survive in an economic downturn or adapt to changing circumstances.  We also need a points system that is more flexible and intelligent.  A welder with a job offer in Prince George may not need to have university-level English or French, but somebody expecting to work as a medical doctor does.

To do this, as I mentioned, we are in the process of making further refinements to the federal skilled worker point grid.  Although we are still reviewing all the feedback we have received, and the relevant data, I expect that our changes will place more emphasis on language proficiency, spousal language proficiency, Canadian work and study experience, and on younger workers, while for the first time providing access to skilled tradesmen, as well as professionals.

Turning to the provincial nominee programs, while we consider the overall program to be a success, there is, again, room for improvement.  In the short term, we see that provincial nominees are actually doing better financially than federal skilled workers.  This is because they typically have a job offer when they arrive, so don’t go through the survival job struggle.

But, while provincial nominees do better in the short-term, research shows that federal skilled workers tend to do better financially in the longer term.  Part of the reason is the FSW point system’s emphasis on language proficiency, which allows workers to adapt their skills and move more easily within the national job market.  That is why a recent evaluation of this program recommended that we establish minimum language standards for all provincial nominees.

Secondly, while we recognize that provinces are usually much more aware of regional economic needs, there are now more than 50 provincial nominee streams – some of which duplicate some of our federal programs and are not, in fact, focused on addressing labour market shortages.  With more than 60 or so ways to immigrate to Canada, you can imagine how complicated and daunting this might be for a newcomer.  This has to stop.

Our government will, therefore, work with the provinces and territories to ensure that PN programs are being used as intended, to address labour market shortages.  We will not consider increasing a province’s allocation under the PN program until it demonstrates that its PN program is directly responsive to labour market needs and does not overlap with federal family reunification or investment streams. 

We also need to work with provinces to improve accountability and transparency in the PN programs.  We already know that there are integrity challenges in the PN program.  For example, some provincial nominees have no intention at all of living in the province or territory that nominated them, and head to Toronto or Vancouver instead – if they even land in the nominating province to begin with.

So we will continue our work with the provinces in this area.  Through better monitoring and reporting, we will be able to tell what is working and what is not, and can move quickly to stop issuing visas where there are clear problems.

We are also considering changes to our federal entrepreneurial and investor streams, to ensure they also best respond to the needs of our economy.  

I think we can all agree that things have changed considerably since the entrepreneur and investment programs were first designed in the 1970s and 1980s.

The drivers of economic growth and creation, the way in which business is conducted, and the free movement of people and capital, all require business immigration programs that will better support Canada’s economic development.

In particular, we need to encourage more immigrants to start new businesses in Canada.

This past July, the World Bank ranked Canada as the third best place in the world to start a new business, after New Zealand and Australia.  Yet Canada lags behind the United States and other peer countries when it comes to technology startups and immigrants starting successful new businesses.

In the United States, half of the top 50 venture-capital backed companies are founded by immigrants.  We do not nearly do as well in Canada.  We must do a better job attracting entrepreneurs and investors to Canada.

Finally, we need to be more aggressive in reducing the huge backlogs we inherited, which still have wait times of seven years or longer.  It’s completely absurd to tell people “apply now, but put your life on hold for a few years before we’ll even let you know whether you qualify, and then, after you qualify, wait several more years before thinking about actually coming to Canada.”

That doesn’t work for newcomers and it certainly doesn’t work for Canada.  We must ensure that we are able to get the skilled workers that employers need, when they need them.

While we have made some progress in reducing the backlog of federal skilled workers, the fact is that a large chunk of that backlog pre-dates the recent improvements to the federal skilled worker program that I have mentioned.

So we are left with many applicants who initially applied under older criteria, which were not as responsive to Canada’s changing economic needs.  Until the backlog is completely gone, we can’t begin to get to where our economic immigration system needs to be, and we will not have a “real time” immigration system.

Vision for Future Immigration System

I have spent some time with you here today outlining some of the past problems with Canada’s immigration system, the reforms we have implemented, and the reforms we continue to work on.

In my remaining time, I’d like to step back a bit and give you an idea about how I believe all of this hangs together.  In other words: The broader vision of the Government of Canada when it comes to immigration policy.

Everything that we do and that we plan to do is in the interest of creating a faster, more flexible immigration system that boldly puts Canada’s best interests first.  One that is clear about its rules and is committed to enforcing them.

The immigration system Canada had for too long was passive, slow, inefficient, and unfocused.  For years, most newcomers waited too long – up to seven years – to get into Canada, and typically settled in one of the Big Three cities – Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver – after which they often struggled to find jobs that paid more than a bare living wage.

The system we envision is pro-active, fast, efficient, and laser-focused on specific labour market needs across Canada.

In this system, we will better select newcomers with the flexible skills our job market needs, or with a direct job offer from a company that is prepared to put their skills to work immediately.  

Newcomers will be assessed in their trade or profession, and their credentials assessed against Canadian standards, even before their applications are accepted.  

They will have the strong language skills that are so important for long-term success.

They will be selected within months of their application and will be working in jobs that make use of their skills shortly after they arrive.

And they will settle in communities all across Canada, so that their skills are best matched with the different needs across our vast and diverse country.

Ladies and gentlemen, if we can get this right –if we can improve the economic outcomes of immigrants – debates over the degree of their social integration would virtually disappear. That’s because I strongly believe that economic integration is the best path to social integration.  If new Canadians can maximize their contribution to the labour market, social integration will quickly follow.

Obviously, what we are trying to put in place here is a system that is more open to the job-market-driven approaches that study after study shows will best ensure the success of newcomers

Most importantly, economic integration and good jobs are why most people come to Canada in the first place.  And the barriers we are proposing to remove are the single biggest source of complaints from newcomers. 

It is in our national interest to ensure that the newcomers we welcome to Canada are equipped for success.  We know from countless studies, with clear data, how best to accomplish this goal.  Now we want to make our immigration system catch up to what we know.

I would add one caveat here: Although we want a better system, we also want a balanced system.

We are very much aware that we need to maintain a balanced system that is focused on economic prosperity, but that also continues our longstanding humanitarian tradition.

I’d like to return to some of the criticisms we have received for shifting too much toward an economic-based immigration system.  Critics say we are not focusing enough on family-based immigration, or other more humanitarian approaches.

Here is the reality: although our economic immigration programs are designed to select newcomers for their economic potential, most of the newcomers – about 70 per cent of them – that come into the country under all of our immigration programs are actually the family members of the principal applicants or arrive under our humanitarian class.  If anything, as I said earlier, there is probably too little emphasis on the economic side of our immigration program.

First, to maintain broad public support for our high immigration levels, we must ensure that our system is fair and rules-based.  There is broad support among Canadians for a fair system in which we do not tolerate abuse and in which we are welcoming to those who follow the rules.

We don’t have to look very far to see what happens when that integrity is undermined.  It’s happened across Europe and even to some extent in the United States, where public support for the entire immigration system has fallen after widespread illegal migration and consequent abuse of public resources have gone unchecked.

I never want Canada to get to that point. 

That is why I have made strong and public enforcement of our immigration laws such a priority, and why, where I saw exploitation and abuse of our immigration system, I have moved to close loopholes and tighten the system.  This, in turn, has given our Government the credibility to keep Canada’s gates open, and even to open them wider, to honest immigrants who work hard and play by the rules. 

The second reason for the Government’s focus on increasing the integrity of our immigration system is Fairness.

Fair play is a fundamental Canadian value.  Which is why I find it embarrassing that, for years, we have turned a blind eye to others who abuse the system and find a way around the rules.

I don’t know how to describe this state of affairs better than saying it is un-Canadian.  We are a country that believes in fairness and a consistent enforcement of rules in all matters of public policy.  An immigration system that lacks integrity and enforcement is as unprincipled and unfair.  It is unfair to our national interest and it is unfair to immigrants themselves.

Conclusion

As Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism, I understand that the issues I deal with every day in my job are matters that provoke very strong emotions and opinions among Canadians.

That’s perfectly natural.  Immigration not only goes to the heart of our national identity, it is also one of the defining elements in many Canadians’ lives.  I would find it strange if Canadians were not passionate about these issues.

That is why I have been happy to take the time today to give you a detailed picture of an immigration system that I believe is headed in the direction Canada needs it to go.

I believe that the reforms we have made so far, and the plans we have for the near future, strike a fine balance. 

I believe that, if we succeed, we will have a fair system with integrity.  A system that benefits all Canadians.

 Thank you.

Ottawa, December 9, 2011 – On Tuesday, December 6, a delegation of Vietnamese community leaders from Toronto visited Ottawa to meet with the Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism. They were joined by prominent community member Thanh Hai Ngo, an Ottawa-based Citizenship Judge. The group voiced concerns about the lack of democratic and religious freedoms in Vietnam and delivered a petition on behalf of hundreds of Vietnamese Canadians that will be officially tabled in Parliament next week.

The delegation of community leaders also met with Prime Minister Stephen Harper. During this meeting, the group presented the Prime Minister with a plaque on behalf of the Vietnamese Association of Greater Vancouver, thanking him and the government for its steadfast commitment to promoting human rights throughout the world, including in Vietnam.

The community leaders also observed a statement delivered in the House of Commons by the Parliamentary Secretary for Multiculturalism and Member of Parliament for Willowdale, Chungsen Leung, in which he reaffirmed the government’s strong commitment to protecting and advancing religious freedom around the world. Mr. Leung spoke about the continued detention of Father Nguyen Van Ly in Vietnam, a Roman Catholic priest who was arrested for criticizing the communist Vietnamese government’s poor stance on religious freedom and democratic values.

The Government of Canada continues to stand up for freedom of religion and human rights. The establishment of an Office for Religious Freedom, as committed to in the Speech from the Throne, will raise awareness about religious intolerance and persecution worldwide, such as the persecution of Father Ly in Vietnam.

November 25, 2011: Statement by Deepak Obhrai on visit to Vietnam

http://www.deepakobhrai.com/media/news/2011/Nov_25_Viet_dem.pdf

———————————————————————————————–

Des Responsables de la Communauté Vietnamienne Accueillis à Ottawa

Ottawa, le 9 décembre 2011 – Mardi 6 décembre, une délégation de responsables de la communauté vietnamienne de Toronto sont venus à Ottawa afin de rencontrer l’honorable Jason Kenney, ministre de la Citoyenneté, de l’Immigration et du Multiculturalisme. L’éminent membre de la communauté, Thanh Hai Ngo, un juge de la citoyenneté en poste à Ottawa, s’est joint à eux. Le groupe a exprimé ses préoccupations au sujet de l’absence de libertés démocratiques et religieuses au Vietnam et a soumis une pétition au nom de centaines de Canado-vietnamiens, qui sera officiellement déposée au Parlement la semaine prochaine.

La délégation des responsables de la communauté a également rencontré le premier ministre Stephen Harper. Durant cette réunion, le groupe a présenté au premier ministre une plaque au nom de la Vietnamese Association of Greater Vancouver, le remerciant ainsi que le gouvernement de leur détermination constante à promouvoir les droits humains dans le monde, notamment au Vietnam.

Les responsables de la communauté ont également assisté à une déclaration à la Chambre des communes du secrétaire parlementaire au Multiculturalisme et du député de Willowdale, Chungsen Leung, dans laquelle il réaffirmait le solide engagement du gouvernement à protéger et faire progresser la liberté religieuse dans le monde. M. Leung a parlé de la détention continue du père Nguyen Van Ly au Vietnam, un prêtre catholique qui a été arrêté pour avoir critiqué l’attitude peu satisfaisante du gouvernement communiste vietnamien en matière de liberté religieuse et de valeurs démocratiques.

Le gouvernement du Canada continue de défendre la liberté de religion et les droits de la personne. La mise en place du Bureau de la liberté de religion, telle qu’annoncée dans le discours du Trône, accroîtra la sensibilisation à l’intolérance religieuse et à la persécution dans le monde, telle la persécution du père Ly, au Vietnam.

Socialist fellow travellers in the West, including journalists who were too “sophisticated” and “balanced” to raise questions about the Communist system, aided in the cover up. They denied there was a famine in Ukraine. Rather, they, said, it was the growing pains of a revolution that was liberating mankind from the oppression of capitalism.

Only a few voices, like that of Malcolm Muggeridge, insisted that the facts were plain: there was a man-made famine, and millions of men, women, and children were being deliberately starved. A few even reported the evidence of cannibalism and other horrible depths to which desperate human beings were driven.

Timothy Snyer’s book, Bloodlands, includes hair-raising details, such as the OGPU report that stated: “Families kill their weakest members, usually children, and use the meat for eating.”

That the ravenous hunger and madness of the Holodomor should have driven people to such unthinkable acts was perhaps the greatest crime of the Holodomor, a genocide which overwhelms us with what Pope John Paul II called the “Mysterium iniquitatis”, the mystery of evil.

Today more people are aware of the events than ever before, thanks to the efforts of people like you here today. Even left-wing reporters, for so many years part of the cover-up for the crimes of Communism, are now admitting (after reading Synder in some cases) that the book “forces us to face the facts about the famine” and to accept that it is “one of the 20th century’s deliberate mass murders.” Even so, the left’s failure to take Communism seriously continues.

There is even a trendy bar for the bien pensants of New York City called “KGB”, as if the Soviet secret police were some sort of funny sophisticated in-joke for Western liberals. But, as one writer recently admitted “There is something [Snyder’s] accounts that forces one to realize there are depths of evil one has not been able to imagine before.”

As the Prime Minister put it last year in Lviv, the day after visiting the Holodomor Memorial: “To contemplate an act of malevolence on that scale truly focuses one’s mind on the nature of this evil. So much for communism’s supposed ideals.”

Au cours de son voyage en Ukraine l’an passé, le premier ministre Stephen Harper a qualifié l’Holodomor de « l’un des pires crimes de l’Histoire »

Let us never forget that the history of Communism is one, above all, of mass murder. Think of the Povolzhye famine of 1921, when Lenin ordered that food be seized from the people to punish them for opposing his atheist Bolshevik murderers, and 5 to 10 million died.

Think also of the Great Chinese Famine under Mao Zedong, when between 15 and 45 million perished largely due to collectivist land management policies, that some in Canada praised for its benefits to mankind, as in the 1961 book Two Innocents in Red China. The authors – Pierre Trudeau and Jacques Hébert, praised the discipline of the Chinese people in 1960 – at the height of the famine that killed tens of millions – their “pride” and “enthusiasm” in building the new China! They praised the Chinese government’s policy for integrating linguistic minorities – which was “while respecting them – to seek to make them understand the blessings of Marxism.”

Some geniuses! Some blessings!

In more recent times, and in a more serious and reflective capacity, in 2008, Canada became the first nation to recognize the Ukrainian famine of 1932-33 as an act of genocide.

Le Canada peut être fier d’avoir été le premier grand pays occidental à reconnaître le caractère particulièrement malveillant de l’Holodomor, ce génocide par la famine qui a eu lieu dans les années 1932 et 1933.

Let us never forget the suffering of the people of Ukraine in the Holodomor, the facts of which no one can deny for all history to come. And let us rededicate ourselves to help the victims of famine today, like the people of Somalia who are denied food aid by another force of political extremism: Al Shabaab.

To quote the final words of Metropolitan Andrew Sheptytskiy :

“Pray that our Lord and his blessed Mother protect our unfortunate Ukrainian nation, which has endured so much the difficult times. May you be strong and courageous in your faith, and persevere in dedicated service to God our Lord! My voice will now be silent – until the Last Judgment!”

I close with a prayer from the Byzantine Liturgy for the dead, which we just chanted:

“In a blessed falling asleep, grant, O Lord, eternal rest unto thy departed servants, and make their memory to be eternal! Memory eternal! Memory eternal! Memory eternal!”

“I was very concerned about the powerful storm that hit Calgary and tore through parts of southern Alberta on Sunday.

“I have been in contact with my Provincial counterpart, Doug Griffiths, Minister of Municipal Affairs, and have spoken with several mayors and community leaders in the affected areas, to gain a better understanding of the damage that has occurred in these local communities. The federal government stands ready to assist provincial authorities in their response to the current situation, if required.

“I am relieved to read reports that there have been no serious injuries or loss of life reported. It’s truly remarkable given the magnitude of this storm.

“I trust that Albertans will show the same strength and resolve when faced with adversity, as they always have in the past. I am confident that Albertans will work together to repair the damage caused and help one another move forward.” 

For further information (media only), please contact:

Candice Malcolm
613-954-1064

———————————————————————————————————————————————-

Le ministre Kenney exprime son inquiétude au sujet des tempêtes qui frappent le sud de l’Alberta

CALGARY –L’honorable Jason Kenney, député de Calgary-Sud-Est et ministre responsable de la région du sud de l’Alberta, a fait la déclaration suivante.

« Je suis très préoccupé par la puissante tempête qui a frappé Calgary et certaines parties du sud de l’Alberta dimanche. »

« Je suis en contact avec mon homologue provincial, Doug Griffiths, ministre des Affaires municipales, et j’ai parlé à plusieurs maires et dirigeants communautaires des régions touchées pour mieux comprendre l’étendue des dommages survenus dans ces communautés locales. Le gouvernement fédéral se tient prêt à aider les autorités provinciales pour intervenir, au besoin. »

« Je suis soulagé de lire que personne n’a été gravement blessé et que personne n’a perdu la vie. C’est tout à fait remarquable compte tenu de I’ampleur de cette tempête. »

« Je sais que les Albertains resteront comme toujours forts et déterminés face à l’adversité. Je suis confiant que les Albertains travailleront ensemble à réparer les dommages causés par la tempête et qu’ils s’aideront mutuellement à s’en remettre. » 

Pour de plus amples renseignements, veuillez contacter (médias seulement):

Candice Malcolm
613-954-1064