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.