Thank you, Madam Chair, honourable members of the committee. Thank you for inviting me again to share with you my views on pending legislation aimed at improving Canada's immigration system.
Minister Jason Kenney, the government, and the members of this committee deserve much praise for taking on this difficult task.
By now, you will have heard much criticism from well-organized lawyers and human rights advocates about the shortcomings of Bill C-31. All of these criticisms deserve your attention, and some may help to improve some detailed provisions of the bill. I will stay away from discussing the issues raised by these critics, except to urge the committee to remember that the views of lawyers and rights advocates are not entirely driven by their unselfish desire to protect the rights of asylum seekers. These witnesses also have much at stake, professionally and personally.
I have no personal stake in the effects and operation of Canada's refugee legislation. My remarks are motivated by the desire to discuss how Bill C-31 will affect the well-being of Canadians, which is a topic often neglected in discussions that focus on the effects of the bill on the well-being of asylum seekers. However, before I do so, let me be clear that my analysis should never be interpreted as suggesting that Canada should withdraw from its commitment to help people escape from persecution abroad. The issue, as I see it, is that while our moral commitment is and should remain firm, it should not be without limits. Just as most of you and I gave less to charity when we were young and poor, struggling to take care of our families, we give more now when we can better afford it, and so should Canada during the present fiscal crisis.
Bill C-31 will reduce the cost of our commitment to help foreigners. It is therefore appropriate for our present fiscal conditions. In this spirit, let me remind you of the undisputed existence of Canada's serious fiscal problems due to stubborn deficits and the effects of an aging population on the unfunded liabilities of pensions and health care programs.
There's also no doubt about the fact that the administration of the existing refugee system is costly. As Martin Collacott told you earlier this week, and James Bissett will tell you in more detail tomorrow, the direct cost for every claimant has been estimated to be about $60,000, and the annual costs of dealing with all of the claimants in Canada are in the billions.
In addition, present refugee policies cause successful claimants to settle in Canada without having to pass the points or other tests. Studies have shown that most of them will have below average incomes and tax payments while they absorb benefits provided by our universal social programs. My estimates suggest that the annual fiscal burden of such immigrants is about $6,000, on average, and probably greater for admitted asylum seekers.
I believe that Bill C-31 will not only make the system fairer, but it will also reduce the number of asylum seekers and successful claimants. These reductions will give rise to savings, which will reduce the deficit, allow governments to provide more public services, or lower taxes.
These benefits of Bill C-31 going to Canadians are accompanied by costs to asylum seekers. You have heard much from lawyers and other witnesses about violations of due legal process and the way in which seekers suffer from a reduction in the standards of fairness in their treatment. We are faced here with an iron law of economics: government benefits to some impose costs on others. The trouble with Bill C-31 is that no estimates of the value of these benefits and costs exist. Yet in the end, your decision to vote should rationally be influenced by such calculations.
The value of feeling good about being generous to foreigners, and even of meeting to the fullest extent the commitments made through international agreements--the value of those benefits to you is not infinity. If the benefits were $1 billion for each less fairly treated applicant or wrongfully rejected claimant, the bill would be more desirable than if the benefits were $1 million or $100,000. In the absence of these numbers, you have the unenviable task of voting for a bill without full knowledge of the benefits and costs. My sympathies are with you.
In case you're interested in my personal views, let me tell you that I would vote in favour of Bill C-31 because, based on my knowledge gained in my study of economics, I believe that the likely benefits to Canadians are high enough to warrant the imposition of some costs on asylum seekers. But let me add, frankly, that I have a moral bias entering these views. I believe that charity should start at home, and that the well-being of foreigners should come second, and only after we have gotten our fiscal house in order.
Thank you, Madam Chair.