Evidence of meeting #130 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was economic.
A video is available from Parliament.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
We're all politicians, of course, and we look at public support. That's our problem in this whole game.
5 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Political Science, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes. It's certainly the case that support for immigration would be hurt if it were perceived as less economically beneficial.
I don't have hard evidence, but my guess is that the mix, the leaning toward economic immigrants, has improved and has helped to maintain support for immigration. How large is that effect? You've suggested a substantial drop. I'm not sure that it would be a substantial drop, just because I think it's hard to see substantial drops in attitudes toward immigration, even in the presence of things such as the Syrian refugee crisis in Germany.
5 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Our problem, of course, is that we have all these other reasons: people who are in terrible camps around the planet, along with pestilence, war, climate issues and all these other things. I could go on. These are very serious issues. We are a compassionate country. We have an obligation to help these people, but I guess we do look at public opinion. That's why I asked you that question.
Go ahead, Mr. Maguire.
5 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
I think it's also important to think about how we can change the narrative. The assumption behind that sentiment is that family class immigrants are of no economic benefit to Canada. However, once again, I'm citing CIC's own study from 2015, which looked at both spousal sponsorship applications and sponsorship of parents and grandparents. It talks about the economic benefits of having parents and grandparents come to Canada. A very high number of sponsors are able to return to the workforce because their parents and grandparents are here, or their spouses are able to return to work.
We think of parents and grandparents as the only people who come through family class. I came from the family class sponsorship myself. Most of my siblings came through the family class sponsorship, because we have an eldest brother who came here in the sixties. Eventually, everybody moved to Canada as a result of that. We are all in professions. We are all doing whatever it is that Canadians would deem to be successful careers.
I think a lot of these assumptions can be changed with the right information to the public, just as assumptions about refugees as queue jumpers can be changed if we change the narrative ourselves.
November 1st, 2018 / 5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
Thank you.
Thanks for your answer. Welcome back.
It's good to see you as well, Mr. Donnelly.
To follow up on my colleague's question in regard to this perception of moving away from the economic stream and how that impacts economics, it seems to be fairly accepted. I think that's what you were saying and what my colleague indicated, but the recent Angus Reid poll showed that 49% of Canadians today have lost faith in the immigration system, as opposed to 36% in 2014. That's according to a survey they just did. That's quite a significant change.
You said that it's very hard to see that change, Mr. Donnelly. That's a pretty significant change right now. I guess I would say that there has been a move away. I want your opinion on what you think we could do to change that vision, if you will, of the Canadian population.
I'll let you answer that first.
5:05 p.m.
Assistant Professor, Political Science, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I haven't seen that poll. Did you say it's an Angus Reid poll?
When you say that they've lost faith in the immigration system.... I would not be surprised by a big jump in trust in the system. That's the kind of thing where a single perceived failure can shift attitudes fairly widely, but on broader measures, such as whether we should bring in more immigrants, how many and so on, that's where I think you see more stability.
To maintain that trust in the system, if that's what you want to focus on, I think the main thing to do is to avoid perceived failures and perceived inefficiencies. That means avoiding real failures and inefficiencies, but it also means presenting the system in the best possible light.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Maguire Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB
What I meant was that 49% of people today want to see a lower immigration level.
We all know that we need immigration, as each of you has said, to grow our economy here in Canada and be responsible citizens in the rest of the world. We look at bringing in refugees. The numbers are there.
I'm interested in your comments, particularly with your experience, Ms. Go and Ms. Chien, as to the levels that we could use in those areas, and how best to find the areas where this work is required.
When bringing these people in, we can't just have them on a welfare system forever. They have to come in and be able to find jobs, and they do, on the immigration side. We need to make sure that we are getting them into areas where they can basically become more permanent residents, as opposed to temporary, as you said earlier.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'm afraid you talked out the clock.
I'm sorry, I can't give you a chance to respond.
Ms. Kwan, go ahead.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank our witnesses for their presentations.
Thank you, Ms. Go, for your comment with regard to changing the narrative.
I'll just jump in and say this. If you devalue and dehumanize refugees and immigrants, of course there will be a backlash. We're seeing some of that, frankly, as a result of the U.S. President's discriminatory rhetoric and policies that are hateful and targeting segments of the community. When you have that, you allow for, I think, emboldened people who want to bring forward racism and really fan that fear.
That's another story for another day.
What I want to get into is the makeup of our immigration system. Ms. Go, you talked about that. One of the issues that I know are front and centre for many immigrant families is family reunification—parents and grandparents. We have a lottery system, which is absurd—to say that your ability to reunite with your family is based on the luck of the draw.
The government increased the number of applications: however, they did not increase with the levels' numbers. It's like saying that a thousand people can apply for this one job and at the end of the day there's just one job.
What are your comments about that, and what should we do on that piece?
5:05 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
I think right now there are a number of issues with the sponsorship of parents and grandparents. Even though the quota has been set, my understanding is, after talking to the minister himself, that oftentimes we're unable to even meet the quota.
I think one of the reasons is that many people will simply not qualify, or they will not apply, thinking that they do not qualify. At our clinic, we see a lot of those examples. Once again, OCASI did a survey of the agencies, and many of the agencies said that many of their clients do not apply because they know that they do not qualify. I think we need to change the requirements, as well as the quota system. If you change one without the other, you will still have the same problem.
Talking about the changing narrative, we need to think about the family class system as an integrated system. It's not just about the spouse or parents; it's also about the siblings and other relatives, which we used to have. People coming through the economic class, but with an assisted relative, were given an extra point. Some of my relatives and family came in through that way as well.
If you think of family class more broadly and treat all family members equally, then you will not have a system where some family members are being privileged over others. We need to rethink the whole family class system as well.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
That's a good recommendation from you, to expand family reunification beyond parents and grandparents to include siblings, aunts, uncles, and extended family members. In fact, that's how I came, by the way. We were allowed into this country because my aunt sponsored my dad, and we came as a family.
With respect to another piece, related to temporary foreign workers, the principle is that if you're good enough to work, you're good enough to stay. Why not allow temporary foreign workers to come into the country as permanent residents on arrival? I'd like you to comment on that.
We used to have a program in Canada where people with different skill sets—medium, low and high—were allowed to come to Canada based on the immigration system, not a temporary foreign worker program. I wonder if you can comment on that, whether we should bring back something like that.
5:10 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Sure. I totally agree with you that if people are good enough to work, they should be good enough to stay. I'm not the only one who says that. Even the Canadian Federation of Independent Business supports that. I think they also recognize that many of the jobs filled by temporary foreign workers right now, as my colleague has mentioned, are in fact permanent jobs that should be filled, but they are not being filled right now.
In a way, the employer takes the easy way out because temporary foreign workers are cheaper. They are tied to the employers. They are more vulnerable, so I guess they are more obedient workers to work with.
We lose because we are losing these people. Once they work here for four years and they are gone, the employer also loses. That's why so many of the employers are pushing for a permanent residence pathway for the temporary foreign workers. They have trained these people, and they want to keep them on.
Again, it's not just about the number; it's about the mix. Going forward, we should think about that. If you think of the economic class, it's not just about highly skilled and highly educated workers. We need workers in various sectors. The workers who are brought in as temporary workers are filling job requirements. They are filling jobs that need to be filled, so why not allow them to come in and stay permanently?
We should also be thinking about having a regularization process so that those who are here right now and are in the temporary foreign worker program would also be able to apply for permanent resident status. That can go toward the 1% or 2%, or whatever quota you decide at the end of the day.
5:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
From the government's own expert advisory panel—it was actually the former minister, the Honourable John McCallum, who did this—the recommendation was to call for 400,000 immigrants to come to Canada, in terms of the levels number. We're not there, and we have some way to go.
That said, we have an aging population. People are not having as many children as they used to, and we need immigrants, for our economy and for our GDP. That is one key reason, if you don't care about anything else.
To that end, with respect to changing our immigration policy, is it time for the government to take a deep breath and say that it's not just about politics or popularity but about doing what is good for the country, to come back with policies that reflect both our need for GDP growth and our need for cultural, community and family support?
5:15 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Yes, I agree with that. I think different governments are trying to do that, and we don't always get it right. Sometimes the way we talk about immigration policy can be clumsy or can perpetuate some of the stereotypes out there, but I think that if there is a will, there is a way. By having this kind of public consultation and public discourse, changing the narrative, once again, will set us on the right path.
5:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
With respect to consultation, by the way, the government is undertaking consultations regarding anti-racism, which relates to this work. The government is having closed-door consultations, and we don't know who's being invited.
Do you agree with that, or should it be an open-door consultation process?
5:15 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
Just to give myself as an example, we were given an invitation to attend a consultation on a Tuesday after a long weekend. I received that invitation on Friday afternoon. It hasn't been a very helpful process, but we have been trying to speak to the minister and the parliamentary secretary about this issue. We hope that the process going forward will be much more open.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Rob Oliphant
I'll need to end it there. We're quite a bit over time.
Mr. Tabbara, go ahead.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Thank you.
Thank you to all three of you for being here. I know they provide a lot of great services to a lot of newcomers.
Ms. Go, you mentioned in your opening statement that we should lift the quota on parents and grandparents. In 2015, roughly 95,000 parents and grandparents applied, and only 5,000 were eligible. We increased that to 10,000. We recently increased it to 17,000, and in 2019 it will go to 20,000.
Why do you feel that we should be lifting that number now and having 100,000 individuals who are grandparents? They could be seniors. They could be older in age. Why do you think we should lift the cap and have these immigrants come to Canada?
5:15 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
They should be treated like other immigrants. If there are no quotas on spousal sponsorship, then there should not be a quota on parents and grandparents.
Again, as I mentioned earlier, it is not just about lifting the quota; you have to look at the requirements as well. If the requirements remain unchanged, even if you increase the quota three times, you will still get the same number because people are simply not applying because of the very restrictive requirements of MNI—at LICO plus 30%—plus the 20-year sponsorship period, plus the three-year income tax requirement. All those things make it difficult for people to qualify as parents and grandparents.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
I understand it can be cumbersome, but at the same time I think we should be cognizant and have a levels program to ensure we're getting immigrants from different brackets, whether they're economic, students or parents and grandparents.
5:15 p.m.
Clinic Director, Chinese and Southeast Asian Legal Clinic
You're getting only immigrants from the high brackets under this class of sponsorship.
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Marwan Tabbara Liberal Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON
Absolutely. But what I'm saying is that the overall numbers need to be increased. We can't just lift the caps on parents and grandparents without increasing immigration levels in other fields. We could be bringing in many seniors, increasing our median age, which is 43 in Canada, lifting that even higher.
I think you have to be careful to have a levels program whereby you're bringing in international students or economic migrants, whether they're high-skilled or low-skilled. I think you have to be very careful when talking about lifting the cap. I agree it should be increased, but I don't agree it should be lifted.