Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Minister, have you consulted with other levels of government, particularly the provincial levels of government, with respect to the impact that increased social assistance usage and other service delivery by the provincial governments, and I suppose municipal governments, will inevitably have on those governments, as well as on taxpayers, as a result of the family reunification intake?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Certainly in the context of the refugees, the answer to that question is yes. In a little while, we will have what they call “month 13”. Refugees receive income support from the federal government for 12 months. After that, they don't. They either have a job or they take social assistance. We are having a federal-provincial meeting later this month, and officials in my department are talking to provincial officials.

Month 13 is nothing new. We've had government-assisted refugees for many years. This latest cohort is bigger than most, so it is a matter under active discussion.

The point I would make is that it's normal for a significant number of government-assisted refugees to need income support beyond one year. When you think of what they've come from, when you think of the fact that they often speak not a word of English or French, and they often have not much education.... It takes a while to become integrated into Canadian life.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Minister, I understand. You know, we went through that with the Syrian study. We got into that.

This question is specifically with respect to the family reunification issue. The sponsors, as I understand it, and you can correct me, are on the hook for a period of time. However, once they become permanent residents, there's a cost. That's the issue that I've asked for. It could be social assistance. It could be other types of issues that the municipal governments have, and particularly the provincial governments have.

My question isn't with respect to refugees. My question is with respect to family reunification, which is what this meeting is all about.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

My apologies. I misunderstood your question.

Under our system, if your spouse comes to Canada, you have a personal responsibility to support that person for three years. If a parent or grandparent comes, you have a personal responsibility for 20 years. That means that for at least the first three years, in the case of a spouse, and the first 20 years in the case of a parent or grandparent, the individual will not receive social assistance—or they're not supposed to—because the sponsor has the obligation to provide that support.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

We'll have municipalities and provinces come to the meeting on this issue, and they'll tell us.... It seems to me if you're agreeing that you're going to increase the family reunification numbers, that will happen.

I guess then the next question is whether the government, or indeed your ministry, is prepared to increase the transfers to offset the costs that are borne by other levels of government brought by this policy change of increasing the number of family reunifications.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Perhaps you didn't hear my answer.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I heard your answer.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

For the first three years—

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I understand that, sir.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

—we don't have any costs.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Then what happens after three years?

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Then I guess they're like other Canadians.

I don't know if they're abnormally high or low... Perhaps Mr. Orr has an answer.

[Robert Orr]

Mr. Cashaback may be able to help out with specifics, but in general the economic outcomes for spouses who come to Canada are quite good.

I think the number who would be on social assistance would be relatively small.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I still have—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

There are only two seconds.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Two seconds. Have a nice day.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Sarai, five minutes, please.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you for coming, Minister.

This may sound more like a statement than a question.

I think Canada's foundation is built on family reunification. It's kind of been the cornerstone of our immigration policy, which was a nation-building immigration policy. The true nation-building immigration is done when immigrants put roots in our country; they bring their families and make Canada their home. That has shown that it alleviates the desire to move back. It alleviates loneliness, and it gives a lot of structure for families. I can only stress that if we can do this more, and on a larger scale...

Even with my experience in dealing with economic immigrants as well, those who aren't able to get their families here faster feel a sense of loneliness, a high desire to go back. They don't contemplate the high cost of child care and raising families here. They face a lot of difficulties in starting a family, for that matter. The faster, the more efficient, and more fair we can make it, the better.

My question now is in terms of a policy that I believe the U.S. has. We have a smaller policy that we call “the last remaining relative”, but is there a possibility to broaden that word? Sometimes you have four or five siblings. The entire family is here, the parents are here, but there's a sister or a brother left behind.

Is there a possibility that under family reunification, we can look at that? You may not have to have the same speed of processing time, but help unite families who are separated by one last sibling only.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

That's an interesting question, and it's a little bit along the lines of the other question about broadening the definition of family for the one-year window. Yours is more limited.

Did you say we used to have that?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

No, we have a policy of last remaining relatives, but that's if you have no parents living in Canada or abroad, then you can pick one person and bring them if you have a relative. This would be even if you had a family member, you had parents here or abroad, you could bring the last remaining relative left behind if the entire extended family is here.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

But did you say we once had that program?

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

No, no, I believe the U.S. has something similar, but we don't have that, that I am aware of.

[John McCallum, Liberal, Markham—Thornhill, ON]

Okay, well, maybe Mr. Orr has a comment on that. I'm not sure how many people that would involve.

[Robert Orr]

I think we would have to look at something like that fairly carefully. Again, it's a matter of choices, and it's a matter of, I think, the levels space as well. If we do that, what numbers are we going to be dealing with? It would probably be quite a complicated program to deal with, and one would have to make choices in terms of levels space, funding, and so on, so there are issues there.

At the moment, though, I think it's important to keep in mind, too, that there are the humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and that a possibility does exist, done on a case-by-case approach. There are about 8,000 cases a year that are dealt with through humanitarian and compassionate grounds. If there are special circumstances, we do have mechanisms to deal with those sorts of cases.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

Thank you.

My second part is about spousal sponsorship debt. If a Canadian woman enters a relationship, and her spouse comes here, and she is abused and separates, currently she's still on the hook for three years to pay for any social assistance that her spouse might incur. Is there anything we can do to work with the provinces? I understand there's a memorandum being undertaken, but those specific women who suffer from domestic abuse are burdened by a legal system that forces them to pay any debt incurred by their sponsored spouses.