Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 1st, 2018

[Avvy Go]

I understand, and we can have that policy debate. But to be very honest, even before the quota was put in, there was an informal quota because there were never enough resources to process the sponsorship of parents and grandparents, which created the backlog of 150,000 and led to the moratorium in November 2011. I'm giving you a history lesson of what happened to the sponsorship program.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

That's correct. The backlog was 167,000 or 168,000. It has now been reduced to just under 30,000, and we're on our way to reducing that backlog.

[Avvy Go]

The backlog was created because the resources were not put in there to process the applications.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

You're correct. I agree with that.

You talked a lot about there being a heavy priority on economic migrants, on high-skilled labour. I have been advocating for individuals coming in through the skilled trades. A lot of times you would be getting a lot more points at a certain age if you have a master's degree or a Ph.D., etc. But I think the government should be looking at.... I consider them high-skilled workers. Some may view them differently.

What would you say in terms of those in the skilled trades? How do you think the government should be looking at the points system? Do you think it should be altered?

[Avvy Go]

I agree that we should look at the different skills and different professions and trades. It is harder to find someone who can fix elevators than to find a lawyer in Toronto right now—I'm just telling you the truth. Many trades are understaffed right now. I think it is important to bring in people with different skill sets, different education levels. I agree with you that we will call them high-skilled workers, but they may not have the high level of education that often comes with the economic class immigrants. I think it's a question of looking at the level of skills as well as the level of education.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Mr. Donnelly, I want to wrap this up. We've been getting a lot of polarization, and a lot of that has been coming from the United States. Why do you think this is growing? Do you see what governments can do to stop this kind of polarization? Should we send out information that historically this has been an economic driver, that it has been great for our country, that it has enabled us to broaden our relationships with other countries in trade, etc. Can you elaborate on that?

[Michael Donnelly]

Yes. On the broad question of why this is happening throughout the west—this rise of fairly xenophobic, obviously racist politicians and political parties—on that front, there's a lot going on and I wouldn't pretend to be able to explain it all. But I would say that certainly economic dislocation combines with pre-existing xenophobia to produce this kind of potent mix.

I guess the one thing I would say, in terms of what the government can do to push back against that and to prevent it from spreading north, is that by far the most important thing is that the messages people get aren't mixed, that the message people get from politicians, both on the government side and on the opposition side, is unified—that this is a good thing, that immigrants have a positive impact on Canada.

Once you have a mixed message coming from political elites, people are much better able to pick and choose the message that fits with their viewpoint. Then you do see polarization.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you for that.

I would like to slip in a question just before Mr. Maguire has his turn again. It's for Professor Donnelly.

I am so old that when I was a student at U of T, we didn't have a department of political science and we didn't have a department of economics. We had a department of political economy. The rationale that was given to us as students—and I believe it continues to be correct—was that there are no political discussions that are not economic, and there are no economic discussions that are not political.

I know you are a political scientist. I am wondering whether there is collaborative work going on on this issue that you either know about or might be called to do at some point where we look at the intrinsic relationship between the economics of migration and the political opinion, because I think we're circling around that.

The question I'll raise is about grandparents or parents and family class. I haven't seen a single study, but intuitively I believe that if we are getting a 25-year-old programmer or electrician or medical receptionist coming to this country, they have been educated—elementary school, secondary school, college, trade school, university. They've had a first job where they've made their mistakes and learned. They arrive here market-ready. The value of that person to this country is immense. If we attract them because we have a comparative advantage that their parents or grandparents may be sponsored later—so they don't go to New Zealand or Australia but come here because they have that hope in their pocket—the amount of money that senior could potentially cost even in the last 10 years of life is overwhelmed by the economic benefit we're getting by having that skilled, or even unskilled, worker coming into the country.

I'm not sure Canadians have thought that through, and I'm not sure we have the academic evidence. The Conference Board is back in the gallery still. I'm just wondering whether you know of that evidence and whether you can get it to this committee to help us understand that relationship.

That's my sermon, sorry.

[Michael Donnelly]

On the general question of whether political scientists still talk to economists in this area, yes, we spend a lot of time doing that.

On the question of the cost-benefit analysis of one worker in any given group and their family, that's not something I've done. I imagine the Conference Board has done things along those lines, or at least you could back it out from their estimates.

In terms of how to convince people that this is the case—assuming it is true, which I believe as well—I think it takes people going out and saying this even in places where it might be unpopular. It takes politicians, union leaders, religious leaders, business leaders and basically everybody we turn to when we ask, “What should I think about this? I haven't thought about it today; I haven't thought about it in a month; I haven't thought about it in a year.” All of those people need to be saying the same thing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I see a paper or a book coming when you collaborate well. Thank you.

Mr. Maguire, are you sharing?

Ms. Kwan, go ahead.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

You're adding to my time, so thank you so much.

First, I want to correct the record. I said 400,000. It should be 450,000. That was the number from the expert panel by way of recommendation to the former minister, John McCallum.

I want to ask a question about asylum seekers. Ms. Chien, you made a recommendation that the government suspend the safe third country agreement, given the situation in the United States.

We also have a situation now whereby if you are a child and you come with a parent as an asylum-seeker, you qualify under our current rules and laws to be an asylum-seeker, but your parent does not, so we're in the business of breaking up parent and child.

Do you agree with that policy, or should that be changed? If it should be changed, how so?

[Jin Chien]

We've already heard from Ms. Go that family reunification is a pillar of the immigration system. We've heard about individuals who bring in their grandparents and parents, and although those grandparents and parents may not necessarily be contributing directly to the economy, there is a social, intangible aspect. Similarly, as we've heard from the chair, if the child stays in Canada there is intrinsic value. There's an opportunity cost if we lose them, if they return to their home country or go to another safe country. If that child is admitted as a refugee, they will be educated in Canada, and that child does need family support.

I can't think of a single instance where.... We've seen this with our neighbours to the south and their policies, where there are family divisions. I don't know of any children who would stay in the country if they were removed from their families and raised in the foster family system that we have here.

I would say that, obviously, any reasonable person would agree that this is not the right policy. How do we go about having that parent be recognized for their contributions and not have to resort, for example, to H and C applications?

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

And when they do, isn't that just a waste of our resources? It's a waste of resources in the very jammed IRB, which doesn't have enough resources to process cases. It's a waste of resources for legal aid lawyers. Often it's legal aid that provides that kind of resource, and so on.

So, for those applications, should we not just allow for the child to bring the parent as part of the application?

[Avvy Go]

Yes, and I think that's an example of the very narrow way we define family. We look at it in one direction and not the others, and that's exactly why we have a two-tier system where parents and grandparents are seen as a different class of family from spouses and dependent children. That's a perfect example of that narrow definition.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We need to end there.

Thank you very much.

I will remind the committee that we're going to meet Tuesday but we're not meeting Thursday.

The meeting is adjourned.