Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 12th, 2016

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

Already a very high proportion of our hundreds of millions of dollars of settlement assistance goes for language training. As I said, it's always a balance in these things. On the one hand, as you and I agree, language mastery is important, but on the other hand, I think one can have exceptions made for older people under various circumstances that can be defended. So that is what we are proposing.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

That doesn't quite answer my question. I think if you feel the programming isn't working, perhaps that's a better option than simply lowering the language barrier.

The next question follows on that. We know that individuals in the workforce between ages 55 and 64, which is the cohort that would be affected by this change, form an important component of the economy. I'm wondering if you could tell us the research you've done on the impact of newcomers to Canada, how many are in that cohort, and the potential impact to the Canadian economy by potential exclusion by lowering the language requirements for this cohort.

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

I did not say the program wasn't working. I'm not sure which program you mean, but I said a good chunk of the money we invest in immigrants does go for language training.

My sense is that the number of 55- to 64-year-olds exempt from language is not large. Historically people in that age cohort have done well, even though in some cases their mastery of the English language or the French language is limited, so I do not foresee there being any significant negative economic effect.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Could you quantify what “not large” means in the context of that cohort?

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

It's 8%.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Total number, approximately?

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

That age category would make up 8% of the total.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

What would the total be?

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

It depends what total you're talking about. If it's 100, 8% is eight. If it's 1,000, it's 80.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Okay. I was just trying to get a sense of quantity. We know that the government has changed the formula on economic immigration versus humanitarian immigration, and I think that particular percentage is important in the context of the change of this language requirement.

Again I'll ask, was any consultation done that quantifiably shows that reducing the language age is a better policy option than looking at increased or more effective programming on language training services in terms of economic impact?

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

We are investing tens of millions of dollars in language training, so we did not ask the question of whether we should invest even more as an alternative to this. We thought it was appropriate to go back to what had been the previous situation and give some deference, if you will, some exemption from the language requirement, to those Canadians of a certain age. That had been the case in the past, and we thought it was right to go back to that rule.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Given that there hasn't been consultation or any sort of quantification on looking at different programming options or expanded programming options versus simply changing the age requirement, would the government be amenable to amending the bill, or perhaps delaying this change until that research has been done? By your own admission, this is a very important public policy option, granting that language is a unifier, that has not been done in the context of the bill. It sounds like a political decision rather than a quantifiable decision.

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

We did not have consultations specifically on the economic implications of returning to the 55 to 64, but I'm told neither did the previous government on the impact going the other way. So we are reverting to the status quo ante and our predecessors didn't consult our moving away from it. We thought it was appropriate given the language situation of many new Canadians to give them an exemption, those beyond decision age.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I don't always look at tu quoque as a particularly good policy response. With the government's desired change in tone perhaps the better solution here is to look at how we can equip newcomers to Canada with language skills so they can fully participate in the economy and our economy continues to grow. Given this and given by your own admission that this research hasn't been done, would the government consider taking out this particular portion of the bill until this research has been done, especially, Minister, in light of the significant changes that you've made to the economic immigration levels in your immigration levels report.

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

The answer is no, and I don't think this is an either/or proposition. Language training is still available with or without this change for those in the 55 to 64 age range who want it.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Would you say that the language training services are sufficient to meet the needs of the newcomers to Canada especially under the Syrian refugee initiative, given that we're hearing across Canada that newcomers to Canada through this initiative are having a lot of difficulty accessing language training programs. Again in the context of this bill, the government has decided to lower the age limit requirement as well as up it on the bottom end rather than focus on providing language training services for newcomers. I'm arguing that this isn't a partisan issue, Minister, this is something that needs to happen.

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

As I've said, it's not either/or. We can have the change in the age group rule and availability of language training, which is the case.

[The Chair, Liberal, Borys Wrzesnewskyj]

Thank you. Your time is up, Ms. Rempel.

Ms. Kwan, you have seven minutes.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the minister and his officials.

On the language issue, as the minister knows, Bill C-6 maintains the requirement for citizenship applicants to pass a knowledge test about Canada and one of the two official languages. For anyone who has taken the standardized test, even in their first language, these tests can often be confusing because the wording or the questions could sometimes be tricky for people. For many new Canadians, this could reasonably be considered as double-testing because they have to go through the testing twice and not necessarily a true representation of the individual's ability to function or succeed in Canada. I can name many examples where people have succeeded and may not be able to pass this test.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister would be amenable to amending Bill C-6 with changes around the language proficiency requirements so that the issue of double-testing could be eliminated.

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

Maybe it's an indicator we have it about right when I'm told to make the language stricter and less strict.

First of all if you fail the test, you can have a second chance. If you fail it again, you can get a meeting with the citizenship judge. But one thing in your question with which I agree is that the language in the book is somewhat more complex than it need be. One of the things we want to do is to make the language in the book more comprehensible to more people than it currently is, and I think that would also impact the tests. If we can make the language simpler and more direct and easy to understand, I think that would be an improvement.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Prior to Bill C-24, what was the language proficiency level?

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

I'll ask one of my officials to answer that.

[Mary-Ann Hubers, Director, Citizenship Program Delivery, Department of Citizenship and Immigration]

The language level was the same. It's the CLB 4, which means applicants need to understand basic sentences and be able to convey basic information.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Was the double-testing a new concept under Bill C-24?

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

I don't know what you mean by double-testing, but I'm told the answer is no. What do you mean by double-testing?