Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 4th, 2016

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

I think Mr. Orr wants to comment, but I want to make one other comment related to that.

One of the things we are doing to deal better with domestic abuse is this three-year provisional temporary residence for spouses, because the problem there, as we heard in spades from various third party groups, is that if a woman is subject to domestic abuse but only has provisional temporary residence, she'll put up with that abuse because, if she leaves the husband, if she's a foreigner, she has no status and might be deported.

We're dealing with that part, but your question is related to my answer on the other side. You're sort of on two sides. He wants to protect the taxpayer, and you want to protect the woman who has to pay for the income of her abusive husband.

[Randeep Sarai, Liberal, Surrey Centre, BC]

These are rare circumstances.

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

Mr. Orr, you can be King Solomon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Actually, we're over time at this point.

Mr. Tilson, you have the next five minutes.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Minister, you have shown that, in comparison to the numbers contained in the 2015 immigration levels plan, your government is increasing family reunification at the expense of economic class migrants, according to the numbers published in the 2016 immigration levels plan.

Can you tell us what your rationale is for this?

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

Well, 2016 was a special year in that we had the commitment on the 25,000 refugees, which meant the refugee number tripled or quadrupled between 2015 and 2016.

We also had a commitment to bring down the processing time for spouses, which meant that we wanted to increase that number, and since the total number was limited, the economic immigrants got cut slightly. But I'm telling you that going forward.... I think in some sense that was a special year, and I can't really say what the levels will be now. I don't know, but going forward we would expect in normal times that the economic numbers would certainly rise.

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

An internal departmental study published in 2014 concluded that the economic outcomes of parents and grandparents were below the average of all immigrants—all immigrants—with fewer than half reporting employment income, low average earnings, and increased EI usage over time. In other words, there was a net drain on the economy.

What's your comment on that?

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

I'll turn to Mr. Cashaback, but I would also say, as I said in the beginning, that parents and grandparents also provide non-monetary services that wouldn't be measured. They look after kids and facilitate the work of the mother and father.

Perhaps you could respond to the numbers he mentioned, Mr. Cashaback.

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

I think the real question, Mr. Minister, taking this finding into account, is that when your government decided to double the number of applications for parents and grandparents in this year's immigration plan, were you considering this? It did happen. I understand what you're saying, in that you increased the Syrian refugee issue by 25,000, but the economic people have been prejudiced.

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

Do you want to comment on his statistics?

[David Cashaback]

I can. I think some of the things that were introduced or modified in 2013 were really to make that period of responsibility longer.

There was the move to the 20-year sponsorship undertaking period. We adjusted the income threshold to sponsor to what's called “minimum necessary income, plus 30%”, just to make sure there isn't that sense of a draw on the family income, as well as requiring sponsors to provide three-year evidence of income stability in order to ensure there is the financial stability in the family unit that is sponsoring. It was in response to some of those concerns.

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

Thank you.

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

The 2016 annual report to Parliament for your department indicates the plan to eliminate the $1,000 labour market impact assessment fee for those applying to bring in a caregiver. Why has this been done?

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

We'd have to get back to you on that.

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

Okay.

That's an undertaking, Madam Clerk.

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

We will get back to you on that.

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

Of course you will. You always do, Mr. Minister.

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

Thank you.

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

Has your department done a comprehensive analysis on the impact that the shift away from the economic class immigrants will have on Canada's economy?

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

In 10 seconds, please.

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

There is not a shift away from the economic class.

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

Of course there is.

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

This is a one-year very minor change. The level of economic immigrants in 2016 was much higher than the average of the previous number of years, so I don't really accept the premise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Dzerowicz, please, for five minutes.

[Julie Dzerowicz, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I very much appreciate your being here today.

One of the key issues in my riding is the change in the difficulty of the language test to become a permanent resident. My understanding is that in 2011 it moved from level three to level five. Many in my riding come to Canada on a work permit and then apply for permanent residency, but they're rejected outright if they cannot pass a level five English or French test.

Now, my understanding is that previously there was a possibility of a substitute evaluation, where the whole picture was looked at. They looked at the economic viability, the family roots, their contribution to Canada, and various other factors, and if they didn't quite have the level of language, that was allowed to pass.

Many who come from non-English-speaking and non-French-speaking countries—many of them in my riding are southern European—have a strong belief in terms of feeling very much discriminated against. I know that some people would say that we want higher levels of English in Canada, and when I say that to those in my community who complain, their response usually is that their level is good enough to get a work permit, but obviously not good enough to get permanent residency.

My question to you is, is there any consideration of moving it back to level three ?