P.E.I. streamlines foreign-worker certification

CBC News 

Posted: Oct 24, 2011 4:34 PM AT 

Last Updated: Oct 24, 2011 4:24 PM AT 

Read 30comments30

Innovation and Advanced Learning Minister Allen Roach announced new spending to streamline foreign-trained professional certification. CBC

The P.E.I. government announced Monday a new half-million-dollar program to streamline the accreditation process for dozens of regulated trades and professions including construction, dentistry and hairdressing.

The province hopes to make the province more attractive to immigrants by making it easier for foreign workers to apply their skills in the labour market.

The program will not include foreign-trained doctors, who face the most difficult time getting certified to work locally.

Innovation and Advanced Learning Minister Allen Roach said streamlining doctor certification would have to be done in co-operation with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, which he did not rule out.

The program does include paramedics, although there are currently no foreign-trained paramedics seeking employment on the Island.

It takes two years of training at a program like the one offered at Holland College in order for paramedics to become certified locally.

But for a paramedic trained outside Canada, there's no clear path that leads to certification.

Craig Mackie, executive director of the PEI Association for Newcomers, said that after the language barrier, getting proper recognition for training and experience is the biggest and most frustrating barrier standing in the way of immigrants looking for work.

U.S. won’t budge on entry fee for Canadian travellers

Tonda MacCharlesOttawa Bureau

OTTAWA—The United States has shrugged off Conservative government appeals and will plow ahead with what Prime Minister Stephen Harper last year called a cash grab from Canadian travellers.

The U.S. will charge Canadian air and sea travellers $5.50 to enter the country even as the two governments have pledged to drop barriers to cross-border traffic.

In the Commons, the New Democrats railed against the surcharge and said it made a mockery of Conservative efforts to work with the U.S., noting the latest border irritant comes on top of Buy America provisions in U.S. President Barack Obama’s latest job stimulus package.

Gerald Keddy, parliamentary secretary for international trade, said the Conservative government is “disappointed” and hopes the U.S. “will recognize the error of their ways and that free and open trade is the way out of this economic depression, not into it.”

U.S. ambassador to Canada, David Jacobson, swiftly tried damage control, suggesting the fee was “not a new fee” and that Canadians had long benefitted, as did citizens of Mexico and the Caribbean, from an exemption that every other country in the world doesn’t get.

The Harper government had lobbied to retain the exemption ever since the 2012 budget signalled the surcharge would be applied.

“I think it’s clear the U.S. government is casting around for ways to raise revenue,” Harper said in February. “I think that this is not a useful way to do that.”

Jacobsen claimed the U.S move was “necessitated by the budget situation in my country.”

“It is paid by American citizens and foreign nationals alike, just like Canadian citizens and non-Canadian citizens pay fees at Canadian airports.”

He said “our relationship continues to be the greatest in the world; whether either country charges travel fees won’t affect that. This fee is not in any way an action against Canada and will not have any effect on the progress of the ongoing discussions surrounding the Beyond the Border initiative.”

The NDP’s Robert Chisholm (Dartmouth—Cole Harbour) said later that “the United States is not taking Canada seriously when it comes to these negotiations.”

NDP MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) was more blunt.

“It’s absurd,” he said. “We don’t charge them a fee to come and visit Banff. Why are we paying five and a half bucks for the honour of visiting the United States? It makes my blood boil as a Canadian Member of Parliament, frankly.”

Martin said the Conservative government “should stand up on their hind legs and frankly tell the Americans, what for?

“This is a provocative insult to Canadians and I expect our foreign affairs diplomats and representatives to push back and push back hard.

Edmonton company fined for foreign workers

An Edmonton company was fined for hiring foreign workers without authorization, according to the Canada Border Services Agency.

Empire Drywall pleaded guilty Tuesday in Edmonton Provincial Court to four counts of employing temporary foreign workers lacking proper authorization.

They were fined $9,000 for each count, totaling $36,000.

The Canada Border Services Agency — responsible for investigating people in violation of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act — launched an investigation on the Empire Drywall in Sept. 2008.

This was the biggest imposed fine in the province since 2006.

FEDS PROPOSE CHANGING LANGUAGE RULES FOR IMMIGRANTS

The federal government wants immigrants to provide upfront evidence that they’re fluent in one of Canada’s two official languages when they submit citizenship applications. Ottawa is requesting comments on its proposal to require prospective immigrants to prove they have a Canadian Language Benchmark Level 4, in either English or French.

A notice says the proposed change would not increase the language level required for citizenship but would provide officials and judges with “objective evidence of an applicant’s language ability.”

Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism Minister Jason Kenney is proposing changes to the way the government assesses the language abilities of prospective new citizens.

Under the proposal, published today in the Canada Gazette for public input, adult citizenship applicants would be required to provide objective evidence of language ability with their citizenship applications.

“The ability to communicate effectively in either French or English is key to the success of new citizens in Canada,” said Minister Kenney.  “This change will encourage applicants to ensure that they can speak English or French when they apply for citizenship, thereby improving the integrity and effectiveness of the citizenship program for Canada and for new Canadians alike.”

The Citizenship Act already requires that applicants be able to communicate in one of Canada’s official languages.  This proposed change would not increase the language level required, but would change the way that citizenship applicants aged 18-54 prove their language ability.

Under the new system, applicants would have to provide objective evidence that they meet the language requirement when they file their application.  Applicants would be able to demonstrate language ability by submitting a variety of evidence, including:

• the results of a third party test;
• evidence of completion of secondary or post-secondary education in English or French; or
• evidence of achieving CLB/NCLC4 in certain government funded language training programs.

CIC currently uses the citizenship knowledge test as well as the applicant’s interaction with CIC staff to assess language ability.  If it appears an applicant does not meet language requirements, they are invited for an interview with a citizenship judge.  There can be a significant time delay between the submission of the application and the subsequent hearing for language.

The proposed new rule that applicants must provide objective evidence that they meet the language requirement when they file their application would give citizenship judges better evidence on which to base their decision.  CIC would also be able to return applications of those who do not provide evidence they meet the requirements more quickly, thus improving application processing.

CIC is also proposing to clarify that the language skills to be assessed would be speaking and listening, and the criteria would clearly align with Canadian Language Benchmark/Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens  CLB/NCLC4, which represents basic fluent proficiency.  This would allow applicants to understand the requirements they need to meet and to provide evidence that is correlated to CLB/NCLC4.

The Notice of Intent, requesting comments from the public on the proposed change, will be posted for 30 days.

Sensible limits to Canadian generosity

BY LORNE GUNTER, FREELANCE OCTOBER 23, 2011

 

 

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is trying to do two things to rationalize Canada's immigration system: Reduce the number of elderly relatives of immigrants admitted every year and give more points to immigrants who are able to speak either English or French.

Both moves hit at the biggest problem with our immigration policy: Over the past three decades, economic considerations have given way to touchy-feely ones.

At a House of Commons committee on Thursday, Kenney said familyclass immigration had to be scaled back. He did not mean the spouses or children of newcomers. Rather, he explained that the government's concern is with the parents and grandparents of immigrants.

Of about 254,000 immigrants admitted most years, roughly 38,000 are older parents or grandparents. Most of these older immigrants will never work or will work very little between the time they are admitted and the time of their death. That also means they will pay very few taxes to contribute toward the social services they will consume.

How is that fair to taxpayers who have lived and worked here all their lives, or who moved here decades ago and have contributed tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of tax dollars since?

As baby boomers retire, our pension and health-care systems are going to become over-burdened. Aging Canadians could face the kind of fiscal collapse hitting Greece. There, social benefits and civil-servant compensation have become so generous that the central government must borrow money to pay for them; its tax revenues have been insufficient. Yet it has lost the ability to borrow enough, in part because the cost of underwriting benefits is so high.

"Canada is the most generous country in the world with respect to immigration," Kenney told an often-heated Commons hearing. "But there have to be practical limits to our generosity. We have to calibrate those limits based on our country's economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the public health system."

As Kenney pointed out, just under 20 per cent of newcomers to Canada are what he called "primary economic immigrants." Immigration Canada claims 55 per cent of immigrants to this country are economic-class immigrants, but in truth just 18 to 20 per cent are skilled workers. The other 37 per cent are the spouses and children of someone with a marketable skill.

Canadians should not begrudge newcomers bringing their husbands or wives and children with them. Trying to adjust to life in a new country and culture is hard enough without also having to cope with being without one's husband, wife and children. Besides, most skilled workers are able to fully support their nuclear families, both directly through their wages and indirectly through taxes.

However, most immigrants do not also earn enough to cover the social costs of admitting their parents, and older family-class immigrants themselves are unlikely to work enough after coming to Canada to cover their own social benefits. Admitting tens of thousands of older parents and grandparents amounts to a giant subsidy to new Canadians.

That is the "practical limit" of Canadian generosity Kenney is referring to - the delicate balance between "economic needs" and "fiscal capacity." By some estimates, it costs federal and provincial taxpayers up to $2 billion annually to fund the social services consumed by parents and grandparents of immigrants. For instance, nearly half of all health costs for most people are incurred in the final five years of their lives. Thus, if we admit a lot of older immigrants who work very little before reaching their most expensive years, this amounts to an enormous gift to people who made most of their economic and tax contributions elsewhere.

I'm in favour of plenty of immigration - even open immigration. I am not as concerned by the cultural arguments against immigration as I am by the economic ones. Yet high-volume immigration into a welfare state can easily become a fiscal suicide pact. So for as long as we insist on offering universal state health care, pensions and other social benefits, we have a right (even an obligation) to make economic considerations a part of our immigration calculations.

Earlier this month, Kenney also advocated tightening our immigration rules so that more immigrants were admitted faster if they have proficiency in either of our official languages. The immigration industry likes to portray such reforms as bigoted, but in fact they are economic, too - immigrants who speak either English or French integrate faster and better than those who speak neither. Typically, their incomes are up to Canadian averages within about a decade and (not surprisingly) they have less trouble feeling at home here sooner.

The Liberals attempted such a change in the late 1990s, but it was quickly shot down by immigration lawyers, immigration consultants, ethnic-group leaders and specialinterest advocates.

Thankfully, the Tories are not as beholden to such groups as the Liberals were, so perhaps these sensible reforms have a better chance of becoming federal policy now.

lgunter@shaw.ca

The problem with grandma

National Post · Oct. 22, 2011 | Last Updated: Oct. 22, 2011 5:06 AM ET

Canada profits when we admit lots of skilled immigrants - blue-collar and white-collar. It also makes sense to admit their spouses and children. But we admit far too many parents and grandparents as well. It's hard for politicians to say so, though, because the instant they do, the immigration industry - immigration and refugee lawyers, immigration consultants, advocacy groups and politically correct commentators - declare them racists.

That's why it was a bold stroke for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to tell a House of Commons committee Thursday that family-class immigration has to be scaled back. "Canada is the most generous country in the world with respect to immigration - but there have to be practical limits to our generosity," the Minister told the often-heated hearing. "We have to calibrate those limits based on our country's economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the public health system."

That's exactly right: Skilled immigrants can usually pay their own way. The income they earn and the taxes they pay can also, usually, cover the services consumed by their spouses and children. But their moms and dads, grandmas and granddads tip the balance. Older family-class immigrants simply won't contribute enough to the economy to make up for what they will consume in social services. Nor are their children - the skilled immigrants Canada wants - likely to pay enough taxes to cover the pensions and health care their elderly relatives will need. After all, they are already on the hook for their own expenses, and the resources consumed by their nuclear family.

While many prefer to treat immigration as only good news for all involved, we need to be realistic. Everything has a cost. Admitting thousands of people who will consume without contributing, year after year, is neither fair to existing Canadian taxpayers nor wise for the nation's future.

As Mr. Kenney pointed out, just under 20% of newcomers to Canada are "primary economic immigrants" - meaning people who can be expected to actually apply their skills to paid labour upon admission. (Immigration Canada claims 55% of immigrants to this country are economic-class immigrants; but that number is misleading: Just 18% of total immigrants are skilled workers. The other 37% tranche allotted to this category represents their spouses and children.) The remaining 45% tranche, comprising "non-economic" immigrants, include the aforementioned grandmothers and grandfathers.

Counted within the non-economic section are the 11% to 13% who are admitted on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. We can debate whether our definitions of who deserves compassionate admission are too lax, but most are presumably admitted for good reasons. Even though they may not always be able to pay their own way, it is worthy of us as a caring nation to accept them regardless.

Adding the 55% of economic immigrants to the latter 11% to 13% figure yields the conclusion that about two thirds of our yearly intake consists of immigrants whose admission is relatively uncontroversial. That would account for about 170,000 of the 254,000 immigrants we admitted last year. However, that still leaves about 80,000 newcomers admitted each year. About half of this number (38,000 in 2010) are non-economic parents and grandparents of newcomers.

That is what Immigration Minister Kenney is getting at: How does it make any sense to saddle hardworking Canadian taxpayers with as much as $2-billion extra each year to pay for immigrants' parents and grandparents to move here? How is it fair to burden Canadians with these costs when the beneficiaries have never lived, worked or paid taxes in Canada?

Canadians are rightly proud to live in a nation of immigrants where all are welcome to contribute to our society. And for purely humanitarian reasons, it occasionally makes sense to admit a worker's entire extended family, rather than just his spouse and children. But too much non-economic immigration into a welfare state is a recipe for fiscal trouble. That is one of the problems Mr. Kenney is trying to solve. And he deserves applause for talking candidly about this sensitive, but important, subject.

Are parents third-class citizens in Canada?

e

 In the case of Jason Kenney,  detractors will have a hard time putting him into any framing of this issue other than the one he wants to make for himself. This is a Minister who knows his portfolio well and who has an ease about his work arising from large amounts of self-confidence. One might even say hubris.

Graphic by Mindy Chapman

The Minister has been paving the policy road for his impending announcement for some months. The magic formula he refers to is a mix of 25-28 per cent Parents and Grandparents, 33-36 per cent spouses and dependents, 22-26 per cent economic immigrants; and finally, 13-17 per cent protected persons and others.

There is, of course, no such magic formula. The formula represents a cautious mix of advice from the bureaucrats and policy wonks; all tempered with a hefty does of the political realities. In many ridings across this country, the Conservative party has worked hard to segment, divide and court the “ethnic vote”. For most ethnic communities, many consisting of first and second-generation immigrations, “family reunification” is the buzz term for “will I be able to sponsor my parents and grandparents”. During the course of the recent Federal election, all parties made all the right noises about families being sacred and central to the Canadian social fabric.

Now after the election, Minister Kenney will have to finesse his comments on the campaign trail with the further erosion of parents and grandparents on the immigration priority-processing list.

The Power of Ministerial Instructions

Will he be able to do so with little political fall out? In my opinion, he will. He has the power under the terms of what are know as the “Ministerial Instructions” authority to amend any program or process he deems, the first Minister to have such broad powers. When these new Ministerial Instruction powers were first proposed the Canadian Bar Association opposed on the basis that the then current process of seeking regulatory amendments in Parliament provided the necessary sufficient oversight of the changes. By concentrating power in the hands of a Minister of Immigration, such oversight has the chance to be lost.

More specifically, the CBA noted:

The CBA Section agrees that the current backlog of visa application and the need for labour in particular strategic occupations are urgent issues that rightly require the government’s attention and action. However, the measures in Bill C-50 are not necessary to address these problems. Bill C-50 establishes a system of ministerial instructions that places essentially legislative power in the hands of the Minister, to be exercised at her discretion, and without Parliamentary oversight or stakeholder input. It changes the system from one based on objective legislative and regulatory criteria for visas to one of discretion and private consultation. This was the very mischief that IRPA sought to remedy. Further, it purports to render the application of the ministerial instructions beyond even the review of the courts. For these reasons the CBA Section believes that the Bill risks damaging public confidence in the immigration system. It is inconsistent with Canadian values, including respect for the rule of law.

There is a good business case to be made to encourage more economic class immigrants who generally add to the economy with their labour and taxes. Parents and grandparents find it harder to integrate into the labour force when they arrive and their productivity outcomes fall below those of resident Canadians. Of course, there is an argument to be made that what parents and grandparents add to family life is immeasureable and creates for cohesive and healthy family units. On the one hand there are the hard economic numbers, on the other the intangible, but equally real benefits of having family support systems.

If immigration minister Jason Kenney’s musings are to be enshrined in policy, it seems that parents (and grandparents) who wish to immigrate to Canada will soon become a third class of immigrants. This is a debate that

goes to the heart of what means to live in Canada, our immigration policy, how we amend our laws, and how we process permanent resident visas.

For any other minister such a change could be political suicide but for Kenney, as the go to Minister of Curry-In-A-Hurry (he is also the Minister for Citizenship and Multiculturalism), this impending change will be framed by him and his ministry as a necessary policy response to growing backlogs. He is a powerful Minister in a majority government with a fractured opposition.

Understanding the Classes

At present, it is possible for a Canadian citizen or permanent resident child or grandchild to sponsor parents or grandparents to Canada, if they meet certain financial and other conditions. Appearing before a Parliamentary Committee he noted that there were 37,500 applications filed in 2010 for parents and grandparents to immigrate to Canada but the annual processing limit is 18,500.

At present there is already a 10 year wait time. To be fair, this is a problem that the Conservatives inherited from the previous Liberal government, in which the Ministry took too many applications, but processed only a few, thereby creating a backlog.

The first of the two priority classes are close family members such as spouses, common law partners, and same sex/conjugal partners. They can be processed within a period of 12-18 months from most countries in the “western world”. Visa processing from the Middle East and Asia might take a few more months.

The second priority class is the economic class which includes high net worth millionaires, skilled workers who are on a specific list and need 67 points on a detailed assessment grid to quality, immigrants chosen by various provincial nominee programs, and other specific workers.

By contrast, sponsoring parents and grandparents, depending on where they live in the world, represent a third class of immigrants and their applications can take between 66 and 100 months (5 to 10 years). If parents or grandparents are already in their 70’s when the process is initiated, many precious years can be lost waiting for the permanent visa.

Parents and Grandparents – A Gain or a Drain?

Over the past few years, the issue of how Canada treats parents and grandparents in prioritizing their immigration to Canada has become a litmus test of whether a Minister understands and embraces “family values” or whether the Minister has a different definition of family. Depending on how successfully the Minister can be boxed into being opposed to extended family immigration, the opposition then hammers away at the Minister for being uncaring and not understanding what immigrants want.

NDP MP Don Davies notes in a letter to the Minister dated October 14, 2011:

Since your government has come to power, CIC statistics show that while we have been accepting more economic class immigrants, there has been a sharp decline in every category in the family class. Total family class visas have decreased almost 15 per cent between 2006 and 2010. This, of course, is a source of much family anguish as spouses, children, parents and grandparents remain separated for far too long. We also note that family class immigrants are often the most successful immigrants since they have a social structure that aids with integration. 

The Minister has been paving the policy road for his impending announcement for some months. The magic formula he refers to is a mix of 25-28 per cent Parents and Grandparents, 33-36 per cent spouses and dependents, 22-26 per cent economic immigrants; and finally, 13-17 per cent protected persons and others.

There is, of course, no such magic formula. The formula represents a cautious mix of advice from the bureaucrats and policy wonks; all tempered with a hefty does of the political realities. In many ridings across this country, the Conservative party has worked hard to segment, divide and court the “ethnic vote”. For most ethnic communities, many consisting of first and second-generation immigrations, “family reunification” is the buzz term for “will I be able to sponsor my parents and grandparents”. During the course of the recent Federal election, all parties made all the right noises about families being sacred and central to the Canadian social fabric.

Now after the election, Minister Kenney will have to finesse his comments on the campaign trail with the further erosion of parents and grandparents on the immigration priority-processing list.

The Power of Ministerial Instructions

Will he be able to do so with little political fall out? In my opinion, he will. He has the power under the terms of what are know as the “Ministerial Instructions” authority to amend any program or process he deems, the first Minister to have such broad powers. When these new Ministerial Instruction powers were first proposed the Canadian Bar Association opposed on the basis that the then current process of seeking regulatory amendments in Parliament provided the necessary sufficient oversight of the changes. By concentrating power in the hands of a Minister of Immigration, such oversight has the chance to be lost.

More specifically, the CBA noted:

The CBA Section agrees that the current backlog of visa application and the need for labour in particular strategic occupations are urgent issues that rightly require the government’s attention and action. However, the measures in Bill C-50 are not necessary to address these problems. Bill C-50 establishes a system of ministerial instructions that places essentially legislative power in the hands of the Minister, to be exercised at her discretion, and without Parliamentary oversight or stakeholder input. It changes the system from one based on objective legislative and regulatory criteria for visas to one of discretion and private consultation. This was the very mischief that IRPA sought to remedy. Further, it purports to render the application of the ministerial instructions beyond even the review of the courts. For these reasons the CBA Section believes that the Bill risks damaging public confidence in the immigration system. It is inconsistent with Canadian values, including respect for the rule of law.

There is a good business case to be made to encourage more economic class immigrants who generally add to the economy with their labour and taxes. Parents and grandparents find it harder to integrate into the labour force when they arrive and their productivity outcomes fall below those of resident Canadians. Of course, there is an argument to be made that what parents and grandparents add to family life is immeasureable and creates for cohesive and healthy family units. On the one hand there are the hard economic numbers, on the other the intangible, but equally real benefits of having family support systems.

Thompson: Immigration rules changing for caregivers

Q I am hearing this rumour about the live-in caregiver program, that as of April, newcomers arriving through the caregiver program can no longer apply for permanent resident status after three years of working. My daughter-in-law’s papers are in process to come and work in Canada as a live-in-caregiver. Is this rumour true?

A: First, you should know the rumour is not true, at least not the way you heard it. The live-in caregiver program will continue to allow temporary workers who come here through that program to apply for permanent resident status in Canada after two years of work. The rumour you heard was probably sparked by a few recent regulation changes for temporary workers that did have an impact on live-in caregivers.

In March, the government announced that as of April 1, 2011 and onward, most temporary foreign workers allowed to enter Canada to work will be subject to a cumulative time limit of four years of temporary work. That means that after four years of temporary work, they will have to leave Canada unless they are well into the process of obtaining some kind of permanent status. The rule change was not retroactive, but applied only to new temporary foreign workers who entered Canada after April 1.

So your daughter-in-law would fall into the category of those affected by the new four-year limit. But, live-in-caregivers who complete a total of 24 months of authorized full-time employment as a live-in caregiver (it doesn’t have to be continuous, but could be blocks of time added together) will still be allowed to apply for permanent resident status.

The important thing is that if a live-in caregiver has applied for permanent resident status and has been approved in principle when the four-year deadline comes along, they will be allowed to stay. There was another change in 2010 to the live-in caregiver program.

Effective April 1, 2010, live-in caregivers working in Canada under the program were given two options for calculating their work experience to be eligible to apply for permanent residence:

 • Twenty-four months of authorized full-time employment, or

 • A total of 3,900 hours (within a minimum of 22 months which may include a maximum of 390 hours of overtime) of authorized full-time employment

Live-in caregivers, including those who were already in Canada when this change came into effect, have a maximum of four years from their date of arrival in Canada under the Live-in Caregiver Program to complete the employment requirement to be eligible to apply for permanent residence.

Q: I was born in the United Kingdom (England) and my parents immigrated to Canada in 1948 when I was 2 years old. Can I claim dual citizenship and carry a British passport as well as a Canadian passport?

A: Yes, you almost certainly carry British nationality as well as Canadian. You can apply for a passport through a centre established by Britain in Washington to handle all passport applications in North America. Check the website of the passport centre for further details.

Q: I was interested in your recent response to the inquirer who had asked about how much money one could take into the U.S. without declaring it. The inquirer had heard the limit might be $6,000. You responded by saying that arriving and departing passengers must report to U.S. Customs any money or other monetary instrument exceeding $10,000 (U.S.).

I don’t know whether a credit card is considered to be a monetary instrument but I am wondering whether I would be required to let them know that my credit card has a limit in excess of $10,000, say $13,000 for example?

A: A credit card with a high spending limit (lucky you), is not considered to be a monetary instrument exceeding $10,000 so you don’t have to declare it.

World Citizen appears every other week. immigration@thestar.ca

Lorne Gunter: Family-class immigration needs to be limited

Lorne Gunter  Oct 21, 2011 – 2:12 PM ET | Last Updated: Oct 21, 2011 4:20 PM ET

It’s good for Canada to admit lots of skilled immigrants — blue-collar and white-collar — each year. It’s also good for us to admit their spouses and children. But we admit far too many parents and grandparents as well. It’s hard for any politician to say so, though, because the instant he or she does, the immigration industry in Canada — immigration and refugee lawyers, immigration consultants, advocacy groups and politically correct commentators —  labels him or her as a racist for even daring to question our current overly generous policies.

That’s why it was so bold for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney to tell a House of Commons committee Thursday that family-class immigration has to be scaled back. “Canada is the most generous country in the world with respect to immigration – but there have to be practical limits to our generosity,” the minister told the often heated hearing. “We have to calibrate those limits based on our country’s economic needs, our fiscal capacity. There is no doubt that the people who are coming who are senior citizens, they have much, much lower labour-market participation and much higher levels of utilization of the public health system.”

Therein lies the problem: Skilled immigrants can usually pay their own way. The income they earn and the taxes they pay can also, usually, cover the services consumed by their husbands or wives and their kids. But their moms and dads, grandmas and granddads tip the balance. Older family-class immigrants are unlikely to work enough in Canada to cover the cost of their social benefits. Nor are their children — the skilled immigrants Canada wants — likely to earn enough to pay, through taxes, for the pensions and health care their elderly relatives will use here. All of which means that admitting the older relatives amounts to a giant subsidy from native-born Canadians and long-standing immigrant Canadians to new Canadians.

That is neither fair nor wise.

As Mr. Kenney pointed out, just under 20% of newcomers to Canada are what he called “primary economic immigrants.” Immigration Canada claims 55% of immigrants to this country are economic-class immigrants, but in truth just 18% are skilled workers. The other 37% in this category are the spouses and children of someone with a marketable skill. Yet, as a I said above, I do not begrudge new Canadians bringing their husbands, wives and children with them. Having to leave one’s family behind is cruel, besides most skilled workers are able to fully support their nuclear families.

Even among the 45% of immigrants categorized each year as non-economic, 11% to 13% are admitted on humanitarian or compassionate grounds. There is a debate worth having over whether our definitions of who deserves compassionate admission are over-broad, but let’s for now assume most of these immigrants are admitted for good reasons, too. And even though they may not always be able to pay their own way, it is worthy of us as a caring nation to accept them anyway.

Together, that means about two-thirds of our yearly intake consists of immigrants we should be happy to have. Last year Canada admitted about 254,000 immigrants, that means about 173,000 are people who are no net drag on our social services and are poised to make a net contribution to Canada’s economy and society after a short few years of adjustment.

However, that still means there are about 80,000 newcomers admitted each year — nearly one million each decade — who more than likely will have to be supported for the remainder of their lives by Canadians who have lived and worked here all or most of their lives. About half of this number (38,000 in 2010) are parents and grandparents of newcomers.

That is what Immigration Minister Kenney is getting at: How does it make any sense to saddle hardworking Canadian taxpayers with $1.5 billion to $2.0 billion extra each year to pay for immigrants’ parents and grandparents to move here just because the benefits we offer to people in their twilight years are better than those in their home countries? How is it fair to burden Canadians with these costs when the beneficiaries have never lived, worked or paid taxes here?

I am so in favour of robust immigration that you could convince me of the sensibility of open immigration — no upper cap on numbers whatever — just not into a welfare state such as ours. Open immigration into a welfare state is a recipe for fiscal suicide by governments. That is one of the problems Mr. Kenney is trying to solve.

National Post