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.