Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 20th, 2011

[James Bissett]

Yes.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Now, when we--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

That's it, I'm afraid. Sorry, sir.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Opitz.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, it's wonderful to have you here today. Thank you for your testimony. It's very enlightening.

What I'm going to do is put both of you, in turn, in the position of the minister. If you were the minister today, what initial steps would you take to fix the system--assuming you had carte blanche in terms of the policies we just discussed--as well as the department and perhaps provincial programs?

[Richard Kurland]

A dream come true.

Well, first off, I'd cap parent intake at 20,000 units a year to stave off a trend of increasing backlog while retaining our traditional compassionate humanitarian level for parents and grandparents.

Second, within the parent and grandparent inventory, I'd hive off for priority immediate processing elderly single parents overseas. Get them in, get them safe.

Third, I'd introduce two priority processing streams. Give them the opportunity to pay the $75K for priority processing within the backlog. When that cap is filled, say 3,000 places, there's another category $75K, and they come forward on a multiple entry TRV, visitor status ten years. Right away, you'll have clipped that backlog by 40% in the first 18 to 24 months of operation. The third priority class--a value judgment on my part--would be parents and grandparents with accompanying dependants.

Next, finance the whole thing by curing the investor backlog, by creating 500 cases a year within the investor backlog, where people pony up an additional $400,000 to bring it to the 2011 investment level of $800,000, and that's a wire transfer to the Government of Canada, no risk to us, no risk to the taxpayer. That alone will deflate the investor backlog.

The last thing I'd do if I were minister to cure this investor backlog, which is rather puffy—it's not as big as people think—is make it a requirement within the first six months to choose a facilitator for your immigrant investor fund and to open a bank account in Canada. Many will not be able to do it because opening a bank account in Canada triggers a Canadian bank's obligations on due diligence and know your client, including some of the source of funds, and you hive off to the private sector the task of separating the good from the bad in terms of source of funds, at no cost to the taxpayer. You'll see that investor backlog deflate real quick.

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

And the provincial programs, what would you do to those?

[Richard Kurland]

If I had the bricks and the bats--

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

You have the sticks.

[Richard Kurland]

--I would go for Ontario with fists flailing.

The other provinces are doing fine and dandy with their provincial nominee programs, including the separate Quebec program, which is fantastic. It works.

Other than that, just do a little more monitoring control, simple things such as linking databases, which is a little controversial. If your deductions at source 90 days after arrival don't match what you said to the federal government or the provincial government to get your selection, flag the file, bring them in. Little things....

[Ted Opitz, Conservative, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Mr. Bissett.

[James Bissett]

Quite frankly, I wouldn't take the job under any circumstances. It's a thankless one.

I think I would do what Bob Andras did when he was elected from the Lakehead and he arrived and found out he was going to be the minister. He started asking basic questions, like why do we have any immigration? And of course the bureaucrats, and I was one of them, couldn't give him a sensible answer. So he said we have to do a fundamental basic study on immigration. “Times are changing. We did need them when the west was wide open and we needed thousands of people to go out there and settle on the land, but do we really need them now?” So he set up a green paper study that went across the country.

Essentially, I think we have to figure out why we are bringing in immigrants. Most of the economists who know a lot about immigration and make it their field of study, like George Borjas at Harvard and many others, are saying that immigration doesn't really help the economy, not significantly. What you have to look at is whether it increases the per capita income of the current population, and most studies indicate that it does not. It does not. And our own economic studies dating back to the Macdonald royal commission, the Economic Council report, and Health and Welfare did an extensive study, significantly pointed out that immigration has very little impact on the economy.

The labour force may be a different thing. But again, if you're bringing in a lot of foreign labour, you are inhibiting the chances of people who are already here from getting training so they can get into the trades they want to get into. That should be a study. There isn't, in my view, a national labour force policy that makes sense.

You have high unemployment in the Maritimes. You have employers in Calgary who want 60,000 workers and can't get them. I don't know how you resolve that, but I think it's unwise to assume that you should keep doing this for labour force reasons.

The House of Lords in England did a study in 2008 and concluded that the British bringing in 190,000 immigrants each year was ridiculous. They didn't need immigrants for the economy, they were not helping the labour force, and they certainly don't help the aging. Yet Mr. Kenney, who was here this morning, will argue that we need immigrants for economic development, we need immigrants for labour force enhancement, and we need immigrants because of the aging of our labour force. There aren't economists who buy into that. Most countries don't buy into that.

I think we need a fundamental reform of the system. Initially, the backlog is the first thing you have to tackle, and it's a tough one. But I think Richard has given some excellent ideas. My own view is that until you get the backlog off your back, you'll not be able to run a proper immigration program.

On the provincial nomination program, it's working reasonably well, but the danger there is that these people coming in do not have to meet any federal standards of education, skills, or occupations. That can be a problem if they start moving around.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Ms. Groguhé, you have the floor.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question for Mr. Kurland, and I thank him for being here.

You mentioned two new processing streams for parents and grandparents, and you mentioned a contribution to the system. Could you clarify for me the effect that this type of contribution would have on the backlog and how it would work? Could you tell me more about it?

[Richard Kurland]

The question was expected and I contacted families in cultural communities all over Canada in order to come up with an appropriate answer.

Families are certainly waiting for their parents and grandparents. They would like to find a solution that would cut down the waiting. It is stressful for them to wait from 9 to 14 years before seeing mom and dad, and they want to find a reasonable solution. As a principle, they have already accepted the basic rule that not everyone has the right to bring their parents in; you have to have the means to do so.

Under the same principle, they cannot all bring in their parents, because of certain social costs. What would be an appropriate level that would allow those people to come? The question is financial. Each province has its magic number for social service costs and for the pressures on the health insurance system. After doing research with appropriate sources, I calculated $75,000 as a national average. I was in touch with economists and other professionals.

At the end of the day, the big question is knowing who is going to pay for it all, governments or families. For the families, the question is settled, without exception. They replied unanimously that they were prepared to pay for their parents to come. I would strongly encourage you to consult those families. Ask them this question: are you willing to pay such and such an amount to bring in your parents if that would get them here on a priority basis? That is the question to ask. But if you are not asking the people involved, you are not really holding appropriate consultations.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

My colleague Don Davies mentioned parent visas as an option. Do you think that the option should be built into the parents and grandparents class?

I think you also suggested that parents and grandparents should be considered a priority because we know that an older person is not going to live for ever, even though their life expectancy may be longer than it once was.

[Richard Kurland]

Don't forget that those people have to pass a medical. People with serious medical conditions are not going to get into Canada. The grandparents who come will be the healthy ones. It is very important to emphasize that.

Grandparents' applications need to be processed as a priority. There are not very many, but they have significant value, especially for some cultural communities in Canada.

[Sadia Groguhé, NDP, Saint-Lambert, QC]

My next question goes to Mr. Bissett. You suggested that the temporary worker program is a problem. How is it a problem? Could you explain that to us in more detail?

[James Bissett]

Yes. Just before I do, can I make one comment on family, which you have raised?

It might be worthwhile for the committee to look at what Australia does with the family. They will allow you to bring your parents or your grandparents to Australia, but only if the balance of the family are in Australia. In other words, if your grandparents and parents have other children living in wherever it may be—Germany, England, or in China—they do not allow you to bring your parents or grandparents because they argue that's splitting up the family. They are quite strict about that.

To go back to your second question, the problem with the foreign worker program, in my view, is that we are repeating, as I said, what happened in Europe with the gastarbeiter movement. They brought in thousands and thousands of so-called guest workers, but none of the guest workers went home. Most of them were unskilled. They didn't have to meet any skill or education requirements. They stayed in Europe, and formed a large mass of people, what people called the underclass, in Paris and in German cities. There are large numbers in Denmark, and they are not speaking Danish; they are not working; they are living on welfare. The Danes have had to do something about that.

I think we are repeating that by allowing more temporary foreign workers into the country than we do immigrants.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

You have the final word, Ms. James.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you. I think I had the first, and now I have the final too.

Some of my colleagues have asked questions concerning older parents. Mr. Kurland, you have stressed that you think that should be a priority, to bring in the older parents or grandparents. I know, on compassionate and reunification grounds, that is a wonderful idea. However, we have to take a look at the financial responsibilities that go along with that. I know there have been some questions, and you have said the questions need to be asked in the community and to the families, whether they would cover the expenses, specifically with health care. I know that's one of the major concerns.

With your expertise and knowledge of this area, what is your opinion? Do you think the families, or the person who is sponsoring an older parent or grandparent, should be responsible for covering the cost of bringing that older person to Canada for health care, for example?

[Richard Kurland]

Without doubt, that is the correct approach, but it has to be paid upfront. You do not want the government monitoring medicare usage and enforcement of promises or obligations post-arrival. It has to be a one-lump-sum amount paid upfront directly to the Government of Canada in the same way they are doing it now. When the parent comes to visit Canada, they are required to obtain one-year travel insurance. It's the same principle. Extend it to the permanent resident situation. That's the fast answer.

[Roxanne James, Conservative, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Since I have the last word, I also want to thank you both and acknowledge you for indicating this government was politically courageous in 2008 for setting caps on skilled workers and also in the investor area. I appreciate your acknowledging that.

The last thing I want to go a little more into has to do with the NDP's position on increasing levels of immigration into Canada as a solution to eliminating or reducing our backlog. As Canadians, one of the main things we should focus on with regard to immigration is that we want to bring in immigrants who are going to succeed, have a fulfilling experience, and be able to take up the advantage or the opportunities Canada has to offer. We want to make sure they succeed. We don't want to bring people from other countries who have lived in poverty or have gone under the radar and have them experience the same things here.

I would like you to reiterate what your opinion is on increasing levels versus making sure we can support new immigrants so they can succeed. Instead of the quantity, let's look at the quality of what can be offered to immigrants and how they are going to achieve their success in Canada.

[Richard Kurland]

With apologies and the greatest respect to the other witness, this is where we fundamentally disagree. And this is, I think, Government of Canada, past and present regime, stroke-of-genius stuff: by having foreign workers in this country, paying taxes, what are the settlement and integration costs? Zero, when they upgrade to permanent resident status.

We never repeated the German experience intentionally. We will not do that in this country. And in terms of increasing the levels, we will have the capacity to do that by enlarging, making it easier for our existing pool of foreign workers who have fully integrated into this country to change their labels from “foreign nationals“ to “permanent residents” through a just-in-time inventory process at the skilled worker processing stage. So in terms of making levels larger, as I said, you can't just spring open the gate and swallow the backlog. It's not the way to go. But you can increase it maybe 5%, or as much as 10%.