The committee received a letter, and I want to make sure I credit this person. It was Carol Sutherland-Brown. We got information. Some numbers were provided.
There is this court case going on right now. This is before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. I can't pronounce the name. It's Bjorkquist et al. v. AG Canada. Hopefully, I pronounced that correctly. The co-counsels are Sujit Choudhry and Ira Parghi.
It refers to such data prepared by Dr. Doug Norris, a highly regarded retired senior Statistics Canada executive. I didn't know he worked there, but I trust the data. It goes on with the methodology.
They identify a group, using Statistics Canada data from 2016, from what I can see. In it, they have a low, a medium and a high. Their numbers are drastically lower, actually, than the numbers you've provided so far. It might be just the way they're calculating it. It's who would be impacted.
It reads, “Even by the highest estimates, by 2045 the numbers of children born abroad to Canadian parents would still be only just over 1% of the total number of immigrants that the Government claims we need. These numbers would represent only approximately .01% of the total population of Canada. These numbers do not represent a floodgate, by any means.” Those are her words.
At the beginning, in the parameters of the estimation, I guess she was trying to address the concerns some of us have expressed at the committee, the concerns “by several MPs that a change in legislation would give rise to a potentially increased workload for IRCC officials, and that there would be a floodgate of many thousands of applicants”.
The numbers they provide here show that by 2049, at the absolute maximum, it would be about 7,000. At the low end, it's 234. In a reasonable future—and I would use 2030—they thought it would be 3,877 as a pool of potential applicants.
Do you think those numbers are credible or reasonable, compared to the ones you've provided, and that they could be a low point, or do you feel that IRCC's numbers are better because you have more informed data?
I would like to know, because this is evidence that's been provided to us by a member of the public. This is part of a court case, so I assume it's credible. The judge accepted it.