Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 25th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on February 25, the committee will resume its study on family reunification.

We have three witnesses before us. I wanted to give the committee members a heads up. There is a video link-up with Effat Ghassemi from the Newcomer Centre of Peel that's having some difficulty.

We will proceed with the other witnesses and, hopefully, by the time the other witnesses' presentations of 14 minutes in total are done, we'll have that link in place.

We have before us here today Mr. Alex LeBlanc from the New Brunswick Multicultural Council. He's the executive director. Welcome. As an individual, by video conference, we have Jeffrey Reitz, Professor, R.F. Harney Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism Studies, University of Toronto. Welcome, gentlemen.

We'll start with seven minutes from Mr. Alex LeBlanc.

[Alex LeBlanc, Executive Director, New Brunswick Multicultural Council]

Thank you.

The interpreter has just taken my speech to make a copy of it, so I'll start without and, hopefully, fill in the blanks later if I leave things out.

Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to speak with you today. I want to say that we appreciate the work this committee does in ensuring we have thoughtful immigration policies and programs that address the needs of newcomers to our country.

Essentially, I have two key messages for the committee related to family reunification and family sponsorship. The first is related to the quota system and its impact on newcomers, immigrants coming to our province.

The second is pertaining to the opportunity that family-class immigration presents insofar as facilitating retention in the Atlantic provinces.

First I would say—and without my speech this is a bit of a game-changer—the family reunification quotas impose limits on the numbers of people we can bring in through that stream.

I'll move on to my second point. The second point is around retention rates. Family-class immigrants have a 25% higher retention rate in New Brunswick than economic immigrants. As the federal government undertakes the Atlantic immigration pilot, which is intended to address labour market gaps....

Research sponsored by Citizenship and Immigration Canada in 2014 has shown empirically that retention rates are up to 25% better for family-class immigrants coming to New Brunswick versus skilled worker streams. This is cited in the “Interprovincial Mobility of Immigrants in Canada 2006-2011” report published by CIC.

The retention rate for family-class immigrants arriving between 2006 and 2011 was approximately 80%, while the retention rate for skilled workers was 58%. This data bears out that the immigration streams that facilitate family reunification and family sponsorship are key to New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada's retention and immigration aspirations.

As we embark on the Atlantic immigration pilot, which was announced by the federal minister for IRCC in conjunction with the Council of Atlantic Premiers, I encourage the committee to look at how the family-class immigration streams can enhance the overall retention strategies that are a part of that immigration pilot.

I will leave my comments there and welcome questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

We'll proceed to Professor Reitz, seven minutes, please.

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz, Professor, R.F. Harney Ethnic, Immigration and Pluralism Studies, University of Toronto, As an Individual]

Thank you for the invitation to appear here, and for the opportunity to present some views. My comments are not about any of the specific questions about the features of family-class immigration, but about the place of family-class immigration in the overall immigration program. I want to address that because it seems to me that sometimes the primary economic impact of immigration is seen through the economic stream, and that the family class is a humanitarian concern. I think, as the previous speaker illustrated, families are economic units, and it's very important to recognize that and to include that consideration as a positive element in the design of the family class.

I think you all know that; you've heard that argument before, but I do want to mention one piece of evidence, which I think is often not taken into account in thinking about this, and that is when we compare the Canadian program with the American program. The American immigration stream—and I'm speaking now of the main part of the immigration program in the United States that's administered by the government, not undocumented immigrants. The main immigration program is a very high-skilled program, and the largest bulk of people coming into that program are family class. Ask any American, they'll tell you that they have mainly a family-unification immigration program. What is often not then observed is that the educational level and the economic contribution of that stream, including the family class and the economic component, is as high or higher than what we have in Canada.

Why is that? I think the reason for that is that the family members who come into the program under family reunification are the family members of those people who have been selected previously under the economic stream. Their characteristics are not independent of the characteristics of the economic stream. For example, the reason the educational level of the family class, humanitarian immigration stream in the United States is as high as it is, is that the educational level of family members of those members of the economic stream is very high; it's higher than the economic stream in the Canadian immigration program.

Of course, the reason for that is they have a very small stream, and it's a requirement in that stream that the main immigrants, the economic immigrants, have university degrees as a minimum.

The point is that it has reverberations throughout the immigration program, including the family class. I think that, when we're designing the family class, the two parts of the program, the economic and the family classes, should really be designed together, recognizing the interdependence of them. Our goal should not necessarily be to increase the size of one group relative to the other. Rather, it should be to design the two of them together, recognizing that the characteristics of the two streams are interdependent. That's one point I want to make.

The other point has to do with the fact that when we look at the economic stream in recent years, we're bringing in immigrants who are as much as possible selected by employers because of a particular labour market need. They're coming to fill labour market gaps. That's occurring at all levels of the economic hierarchy: high-skilled jobs, middle-skilled or trade jobs, and less skilled jobs. In all these levels, there's increasing attention given to the need, once people come into the country and begin making an economic contribution, to transition to permanent status. To some extent, that is actually happening.

This has an impact later on the family class. It means that the family members coming in will be the family members of people selected for those economic criteria. In the family class, as it's being administered, family members are asked to take responsibility for the economic welfare of the family members they are bringing in. That's because, I think, family members are seen as a potential liability we should protect ourselves against.

On the employers' side, employers are bringing in people they want for a particular purpose, but they're not necessarily asked to make the same kind of commitment, even though there's a potential economic liability there. I think there's been a difference in the view of family-class immigrants as opposed to skilled or unskilled workers coming in for particular employment needs. Both of those streams, since they're not individually selected for the long-term interests of the Canadian economy, may represent potential liabilities.

On the family-class side, we think of imposing constraints and requirements on the people requesting that they be brought in, but we don't ask that on the employers' side. That's a bit of a disparity, it seems to me, suggesting that family-class immigrants are viewed with a bit more suspicion. I think that, as I mentioned initially, the family-class immigrants—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Mr. Reitz, please be brief.

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

Sure, this is my last sentence: the family class is an important part of the economic goal of the immigration program.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Professor.

Mr. LeBlanc was cut short earlier and he didn't have his presentation before him, so he missed his first point. Mr. LeBlanc, we'll hear you now.

[Alex LeBlanc]

I appreciate that.

The appropriateness of imposing a quota system for family reunification is something that I and our members believe needs to be studied further. It seems to be inconsistent with the desire to increase humanitarian immigration and economic immigration. We have to have available streams for those individuals to reunite with their family members.

Applicants who meet all of the eligibility requirements may be denied the ability to reunite with their family members because the quota has been met. It would be reasonable to examine alternatives to the quota system that determine cases based on eligibility criteria alone.

This is really just to hammer home the point made by this question: why would some people versus others be able to reunite with their loved ones by the simple virtue that they got their applications in on time? Both groups meet the criteria for our system. Essentially, that's the second point I wanted to make.

To circle back to the New Brunswick-specific, the Atlantic-specific context, our region has a much smaller population. We have smaller centres. We're more rural in nature. So there are much smaller existing immigrant communities. If we're trying to increase retention in the Atlantic provinces, we have to look at family-class immigration as a mechanism to enhance those families who have chosen our region. The retention rates, as I said, are 25% higher for family-class immigrants in the Atlantic provinces, or in New Brunswick specifically, as compared with those of economic immigration streams.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Now we have Ms. Effat Ghassemi with us by video conference. She's the executive director of the Newcomer Centre of Peel.

Ms. Ghassemi, you have seven minutes, please.

[Effat Ghassemi, Executive Director, Newcomer Centre of Peel]

Thank you.

I'm a good example of family reunification sponsorship. I will tell you my story very quickly, but not now.

I wanted to start by asking, do we need a quota system? Do immigrants need another level of stress or anxiety? Research shows that immigration is one of the top ingredients for stress in human life.

Everyone needs their family. This is not a privilege. It is not a demonstration of Canadian kindness or based on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. It is a human rights issue.

Immigration enhances Canada's global standing. Everybody needs family. Enhancing family reunification and sponsorship is essential and important. It is the safest way of bringing immigrants to Canada. A quota of 5,000 or 10,000 is not sufficient, in my opinion.

Not every family wants to sponsor their grandparents or parents. For the ones who need them, Canada should facilitate their sponsorship in a very timely manner—in my opinion, less than a year.

“Almost 100% of Canada's net population growth will be through immigration by 2035”. Immigrants “boost trade ties between Canada and the world”, “strengthen culture and diversity”, and “are motivated...”. Immigrants “are motivated, innovative and entrepreneurial”. That's according to The Conference Board of Canada, 2016.

The super visa, in many cases, is very expensive. Insurance is expensive and doesn't cover everything. I think our government should deal with a few insurance companies in order to make it affordable for newcomer families. In my opinion, super visas add a great value to the whole Canadian immigration system.

Not every parent or grandparent would like to come and stay in Canada, because they have other kids and family members around the world. Some told me that they live in two or three countries. Every year they have to travel to see their children and their family members. They need to buy tickets and insurance. It's very expensive, but it's a good way for so many other cultures and countries.

Canada should make the process of issuing super visas quicker and more affordable, so children can see their parents. Many times they want their parents to come to Canada for a particular reason—a new baby, a sickness, or challenges at work or at home. They need their parents. They need the immediate attention from their own parents and grandparents.

One thing that I am hearing over and over because of my work with immigrants and refugees is that parents and grandparents are a burden on our health system. Since January 2014, the length of a sponsorship has been changed to 20 years. If there's no government funding involved, families are paying for them. Health expenses versus what they provide to their children and grandchildren is a huge spectrum....

Parents and grandparents take care of children at home, and they not only take care of them, but they care for them in a very nurturing and kind environment. We all know that day care is expensive with limited spots. It is a national issue in Canada. They teach their culture and their language to their grandchildren. This is amazing. Morality, fate...ll these things come from the family, especially from grandparents. They cook traditional food with love and pleasure. They do chores and gardening around the house.

I know for a fact that the older generation is the magnet for the family. They are the magnet in my family. Italians say that the grandfather's home is the headquarters of the family. It keeps us connected. Of course, the Middle Eastern cultures say the same, as well as people from India, and Pakistan, and the Arab world. There will be much greater respect at home when you have the presence of parents and grandparents as well.

I always ask, “Why do immigrants leave Canada?” The major reason is their families. They want to reunite with their own families. That's why Canada, in my opinion, has a low retention overall of keeping good immigrants as good citizens forever in Canada.

Of course, there are some other reasons, like employment, that are important too, but family is really on the top of the list. By the way, before Canada grants grandparents and parents a permanent visa under sponsorship, they have to undergo extensive medical exams. They should be healthy to come to Canada. Also, there's a three-month waiting time for their OHIP card in Ontario, basically. That's another issue.

Parents and grandparents bring money to Canada. My parents sold everything, all the properties, and brought the money here and spent it to help the children. Some bring their own pension to Canada. Some countries allow them to get their pension here, but in some countries, they have to go back every year to collect their pension.

Overall, I'll just come up with the Italians. Italians say “family helps family”. Indians and Pakistanis say, “Parents take care of children and children take care of parents”. There is a culture behind these quotes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thirty seconds.

[Effat Ghassemi]

Absolutely time is important, and it has to be really under one year to get all these visas granted to parents and grandparents.

I think that's all I wanted to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Ms. Ghassemi.

We'll start with Ms. Khalid for seven minutes, please.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

First of all, thank you, Chair, for having me in your committee today. It's definitely an honour and a privilege.

Thank you to the witnesses for your very positive testimony today with respect to this very important issue.

I think all three of you have spoken about the positive impacts of family reunification not just with respect to economy but also with respect to social life. I think that all of the members of Parliament sitting around this table can relate that we are basically the front-line workers with respect to immigration issues in our constituency offices.

The human stories that we hear on a daily basis really reflect our immigration system, the troubles and the challenges that it faces. I'd like to actually share a story.

Ms. Effat, you talked about parents, so I will say that I have a constituent who had applied for his parents in 2012. His parents are in India where the typical processing time is nine years. The couple had a child in 2014 and wanted to invite his parents on a TRV to meet the newborn. The visitor visa was refused. In 2014, the father of the couple had a heart attack and passed away without seeing his grandchild. The mother is now alone back home, old and sick without any assistance; and since the father passed away, there had to be a change in the principal applicant for their sponsorship application. So that caused further delays in their case. The couple sends money back home to support the mother. I would say that with the number of cases that we see of this, not only does this have a negative impact on the economy here, where dollars are leaving the country, but also there's the social impact on this family, and the stress that they go through.

I'd like to know, Ms. Effat, if you have had similar experiences in your work especially in the Peel region, which is very rife with new immigrants.

[Effat Ghassemi]

Before I came here, I talked to my settlement counsellors. Every day they see people from around the world coming to our centre asking different kinds of questions, and family reunification and sponsorship is such an important part of their work. They really suffer because of the lengthy process of bringing their families—mom and dad or grandparents—for a visit to see them.

There is a reason behind all these applications. They need them so quickly. They have a baby coming or they are sick or they have stress and anxiety. Young people are getting other kinds of stress in their lives and they need somebody to help them. They are alone.

We really want to have family around the corner. Of course, we don't have them in the neighbourhood. In our culture, we have family in our own neighbourhood. It's a headquarters. Everybody is connected and we help each other. But here at least the family members like mom and dad, grandparents and others, or siblings.... I'm really emphasizing bringing in siblings; open the door for siblings to come. I came as a sibling in 1988 with my family to Canada, and look at me. I'm not a burden. I did so much for Canada and Canada did so much for me. We should really reopen this conversation to sponsor and bring in siblings, too.

Thank you.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I also want to talk a little bit about the impact of economy and then family reunification. It's my understanding that when potential employees are looking for work in highly specialized industries here in Canada, they're not often given the opportunity to bring their families—or their spouses, in particular—to come to Canada while they work here.

Can I get a comment from Alex? How does that impact New Brunswick? Do you think that has a negative impact on people who are coming into Canada, or does that deter them from taking contracts in Canada?

[Alex LeBlanc]

In my experience, it doesn't prevent people from wanting to come to Canada. It just creates hardship, in terms of separation, for them once they are here. There are 13 settlement agencies across New Brunswick. They work with economic immigrants, family-class immigrants, and refugees. Their experience is that the stress, the mental health impacts, and the overall social integration of newcomers is impacted negatively due to separation from family members.

So if we as a country are looking to get the best and the brightest to address our labour market gaps, to help us grow our economy, to start new businesses, we should be recognizing that those people have family connections, and their families are important to writing that Canadian story, to the fabric of our country and our communities. I think if that's the vision—that we want the best and the brightest—then we have to understand that they're going to want to bring their family members.

Furthermore, in terms of refugees, I want to applaud the government for the ambitious objective of bringing in 25,000 refugees and for meeting that objective. We worked very hard in New Brunswick on this, to collectively make it a success. These individuals are now very preoccupied with the fact that many of them have family in inhospitable and unsafe environments. And so on a daily basis—three, four, five, or six times a day—they're getting contacted by their family members, and this is weighing down on them.

So family class in terms of family reunification for people who arrive as refugees is part and parcel of the original objective that we had as a humanitarian undertaking. Bringing in their family members is part of the undertaking, part of the follow-through in terms of the humanitarian commitment that we made as a government.

For both of those reasons, I think it's important that we look at a quota system, and whether a quota system makes sense, or whether we want to define very clear eligibility criteria for those—

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you, Mr. LeBlanc.

Mr. Saroya, you have seven minutes, please.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses for their expertise and for telling us how we can improve the system.

Three of you talked about the quota system. The 2016 immigration level plan shows the government intent to admit 80,000 family-class immigrants, of which 20,000 are to be parents and grandparents.

In your view, are these targets adequate? If not, why not? What are the implications of these targets with respect to family reunification? I'd like to hear from all of you on this. We can start with Alex.

[Alex LeBlanc]

Again, I would say it needs to be guided less on a predetermined number but more on how many eligible applicants we are seeing come through, and how we facilitate that. Especially given the 25,000 to 30,000 Syrian refugees we've recently welcomed, and the increased focus on now having an Atlantic immigration pilot in New Brunswick, we're going to see up to 2,000 more families come to our region through that stream. This is going to bring a corresponding increase in demand for family-class immigration. We're going to see a growth in demand in that area. As we bring more people through humanitarian streams, economic streams, we have to be prepared to respond to the increased demand in family-class immigration.

Again, I wouldn't want to say that the quota system or the targets for this year are adequate, because I think any time we're turning families away and saying that they missed the cutoff or we already have our quota, so to speak, I think it's inappropriate. It doesn't reflect humane immigration principles.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Ms. Ghassemi, what's your opinion on this?

[Effat Ghassemi]

My opinion is that I don't know what magic number I can put on the table, but definitely this number of 5,000 applications, which then became 10,000, really is not working. In January 2016, they opened for applications, and within two hours the applications were done and they just closed it. It means that the demand for family reunification and sponsorship is high.

I think this is the safest and one of the best ways of bringing people to Canada in order to have a community of different cultures, different families. They can help each other and live happily here.

As to quota, I have no idea how many applications we have to have, but I know the quota that we're practising right now does not work at all.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Mr. Reitz, do you have any opinion on this? Is there anything you'd like to add?

[Prof. Jeffrey Reitz]

Yes. I certainly agree with all the comments that have been made by the other two presenters, but I want to emphasize that while we may call the family class a humanitarian class, that is a term we're using, it seems to imply less of an economic contribution from the family class. The basis that's usually used to make that statement is that the earnings of family-class immigrants are lower than the earnings of economically selected immigrants.

I think that's a false economic model. We should be asking, what is the impact that the arrival of a family class has on the earnings of the economic immigrants? In my view, that is quite positive. My evidence for that is, as I said, to compare the Canadian immigration program with the American one. In the American one, by far the largest group of immigrants is the family class, and the way they are seen, it's called a humanitarian category. Yet the overall economic contribution of those immigrants, mostly from Asia and the Caribbean, is as good or better than their counterparts in Canada. So having a very large so-called humanitarian program in the United States is definitely not hurting the economic standing of those immigrants.

Again, while I think we should be addressing the concerns that have been expressed, the pain of separation in families, and so on, we should not take that to imply that allowing those folks to come to Canada is in some way an economic disadvantage for Canada. I think to the contrary.

[Bob Saroya, Conservative, Markham—Unionville, ON]

I don't think anybody is disagreeing with you on the issue. We bring in about 300,000 in total numbers with all the different classes, so we have to have something in mind. I believe there is a huge number of family reunification files sitting there, from throughout the world, but we have to mix and match. Within the family class, how many can come, and within the economic class, and many other classes? That's what the question was. To the three of you, what would be acceptable if you had to pick a number?