Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

I guess one of the points I would make there is that as we've seen the immigration numbers change over the years, there has been a definite attempt to increase the proportion of immigrants selected on the basis of economic criteria and reduce the family-class component. I think that has been done without any evidence that this is really a priority from the point of view of the overall design of the program.

While we've been doing that, we've also been changing the economic selection criteria to reduce the emphasis on skill level and increase the emphasis on immediate labour market concerns. That may actually have reverberations for family-class immigration of the future. That probably represents more of a threat to the long-term economic benefit of the program than increasing family-class immigration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Ms. Kwan, for seven minutes, please.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I'd like to thank all the presenters for their presentations.

I have a question around quotas. People were talking about numbers, but I wonder whether there should be a quota at all. I think there's a real question to be asked if you have a situation where the quota of applications was changed from 5,000 to 10,000, and within hours it was already met. If there's value to family reunification in a whole range of perspectives, then should there even be a quota, for example?

I wonder if I could get quick comments from each of the witnesses, given that we only have seven minutes in our allotted time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Perhaps we'll go in order of the speakers' presentations.

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Alex LeBlanc]

I think I would echo that question. The question this committee has to look at very seriously is whether a quota is an appropriate measure or a system to facilitate family-class immigration or family reunification. I don't believe it's consistent. It's arbitrary. It's an arbitrary number.

You have an 80,000 quota, but you have 100,000 applicants. Why are those 20,000 families not getting reunited? What is different about their circumstance, apart from the fact that their applications didn't get submitted on time. I think it's an arbitrary measure; that separation of families has a negative economic and health impacts on newcomers.

As was mentioned, we're talking about human lives and human stories and I think a quota system is inconsistent with our objectives, collectively, in terms of our immigration, economic and humanitarian.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Professor Reitz.

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

It's my view that the legislation requires Parliament to set the total numbers of immigrants, and within that numbers are allocated across the various categories, and they all can be seen as, in effect, quotas.

It seems to me setting the numbers is part of the responsibility of the government in designing the immigration program. So whether you call it a quota or not, there are going to be numbers that are used to establish the size of the various streams.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Ghassemi—

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

I think to have people under a family class without any kind of limit at all, that would be contrary to the legislation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

It doesn't mean the legislation could not be changed or government can't change the stream of a program...making that assumption. Of course, a recommendation could be made to say this doesn't make sense and therefore there should be a change to reflect that.

My question to you is whether or not that should be considered? I get it about all of those things, about what it means, but the real question, of course, is does it even make sense to have those rules in place accordingly?

I'm going to move on to the next witness, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Ghassemi.

[Effat Ghassemi]

Yes, thank you..

I'm thinking about whether we need a magic number in my opinion, and I'm thinking about how not every economic family wants to bring their parents or grandparents here and not everybody has small children and they need immediate attention.

I think the quota should be between 50,000 to 60,000 families on a yearly basis.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

I'm going to move on to a different stream of questions. The issue around the definition of family was also raised and particularly on the notion that siblings are excluded within the family reunification program.

I want to touch on this quickly, if people have a view about that and whether or not that should be changed as well. I know this is a major issue in different cultures and particularly with the new stream of refugees coming in. They define family very differently. I know from my own community, in the Chinese community, we also define it very differently in terms of the extended family and the value of that.

I wonder if I can get some quick comments about whether or not that ought to be changed as well in terms of the definition of family to be expanded and where once upon a time it actually included a stream to allow applications to be made for siblings in that family reunification stream. We'll go very quickly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. LeBlanc.

[Alex LeBlanc]

Yes, our organization would support opening up some options for sibling reunification and there was also some discussion about cut-off ages. In many cases the families are coming and somebody is going to be 18 years old and they're still a university student or college-age student. They're still a dependant in the family, but for some reason they're evaluated as an independent.

I think that also needs to be looked at in terms of the circumstances of the family. Is this person still an economic dependant? Are they studying or are they going to attend our post-secondary institutions? What are the realities of the family?

Thank you.

Professor Reitz.

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

I'll pass. I don't have a view on that question.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Ms. Ghassemi.

[Effat Ghassemi]

Yes, I'm very pro opening the discussion on siblings and extending the family definition. I told you my story, I came as part of the siblings' sponsorship and I think this is working amazingly well for family reunification.

All of a sudden, it brings down the quota of parents' and grandparents' numbers that if you look at the whole family and bring them one at a time if they ask to come to Canada, then you will see that you have a basket of different flowers and different fruits that make a balance in our Canadian system.

I see it that way.

Thank you.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Just very quickly then, on the question around the cost of sponsorship, which is also very onerous, if you were a family of three sponsoring a parent and a grandparent or two grandparents, let's say, then you would need to actually get the income at the level of five people for three years preceding that. I am wondering—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

You have 10 seconds.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

A quick comment, should that be lowered? We'll start with Ms. Ghassemi.

[Effat Ghassemi]

Of course, the cost is very important, but I don't know how to balance 10 years to 20 years of sponsorship and then have a high cost for four, five, six, or seven family members. I really don't know that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you.

Mr. Tabbara, you have seven minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for being here today and helping us conduct our further study on family reunification.

During one of the respondent's answers, I heard “the best and the brightest”. I want to talk about that. I had a consultation in my region. We're in the Waterloo region. It's the high-tech sector in Canada. When I spoke to individuals there they said that immigration was an issue they had. They're trying to attract the best and brightest to come to work in these high-tech sectors, but they are having some of issues with immigration.

My first question would be for all, but I'll start with Mr. Reitz. Would you say that family reunification is a good incentive to attract and keep the best and brightest by providing them an opportunity to reunite with their loved ones?

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

That is a very interesting question, and we don't have a lot of evidence I can cite in research showing that people are attracted to one country as opposed to another because of more liberal family-class admission criteria, but the point was made earlier that, when family members are not able to join their loved ones in Canada, it is stressful. That tends to suggest it's a negative experience, and that experience is shared with people back home, so it would be surprising to me if it is not the case that the family-class rules that are in place in the immigration program have an impact on the desirability of coming to Canada and an impact on recruiting people to come for highly skilled jobs.

I certainly know that's the case in my own sector. In the universities, when we're trying to recruit from abroad, people look at the immigration rules that are in place. If they are going to come to Canada, they want to know what the rules are going to be relating to members of their family.

I can't cite research on this question, unfortunately.