Balancing social and economic interests with family sponsorships

Written by  Jennifer NeesPosted Date: November 28, 2011

Source: Canadian Lawyer

On Nov. 4, the Canadian government announced it was taking immediate action to cut the backlog of parent/grandparent sponsorship applications by suspending any new applications for the program. It vowed to decrease the backlog of 165,000 files by increasing the number of those backlogged applications processed during 2012. In addition, the government will be introducing a new “Parent and Grandparent Super Visa,” which will allow eligible applicants a 10-year visa valid for multiple two-year stays in Canada. This Super Visa will become available on Dec. 1.

The reaction of the immigration bar to this announcement has been mixed. While some counsel applaud the government’s efforts to address the extensive processing times (five years and counting), others are concerned that the unspoken “truth” is that the government no longer places an importance on sponsoring parents and grandparents.

There’s been much discussion about the various benefits and drawbacks of the parental sponsorship program. Among the benefits are the importance of family reunification as a tenet of the Canadian immigration program, the benefits that parents and grandparents provide with respect to familial issues such as childcare, and the liquidated assets that many parents and grandparents bring to Canada when they land as immigrants. The drawback arguments have included the possible increased demand on health-care services from elderly new immigrants and the general lack of contribution to the Canadian workplace as elderly new immigrants may be less likely to enter the Canadian labour market.

The theory is the Super Visa would deal with the positive aspects without incurring any of the negative ones. While information kits are not yet available online, Citizenship and Immigration Canada has indicated that Super Visa applicants will be required to undergo an immigration medical examination; demonstrate they have purchased private Canadian medical insurance; and provide a written commitment of financial support from a child or grandchild in Canada who meets a minimum income threshold. If approved, they will be allowed to remain in Canada for two years at a time without access to health care or the labour market.

While I can appreciate the benefit of having parents or grandparents visit for a long time, and the positive effects this could have for Canadian citizen and permanent resident families, in my mind it falls short.

The Super Visa will allow foreign parents and grandparents to come to Canada, to visit for up to two years at a time and to spend their money, but it will not allow them to make Canada their home, to build a life here with their Canadian citizen/permanent resident children, or the certainty of where they will be if they unfortunately require some sort of long-term care or treatment. It also creates uncertainty for the Canadian citizen/permanent resident offspring who is concerned about long-term care options for a family member, which would be alleviated by having a Canadian permanent resident parent.

It’s a fine balance between the economic and social benefits of having family sponsorship in general. As a society, we want to encourage the best and brightest potential immigrants, but this means offering more than just the possibility of jobs. It also means allowing them to sponsor their family members and to build a complete life in Canada. For many people, this will mean having the ability to sponsor parents or grandparents, and even siblings, who continue to be ineligible under the Canadian family sponsorship class.

It will be interesting to see how these changes affect the program and if the Super Visas decrease the number of overall applicants under this class if/when the suspension is lifted and the class becomes operational again. The Super Visa will likely offer a speedy option for parents and grandparents who are interested only in visiting their Canadian children, and it certainly addresses the issues surrounding access to health care, but it ignores many of the social reasons why people sponsor their parents and grandparents to Canada in the first place.

Ontario’s dwindling appeal to immigrants prompts funding cut from Ottawa

STEVEN CHASE

Ontario is slowly losing its appeal for immigrants as newcomers head to more promising regions to make a life for themselves, a trend prompting Ottawa to reduce the funding it gives Canada’s most populous province to settle arrivals.

The state of affairs has Ontario’s Immigration Minister blaming the Harper government for the problem and warning the that disappearance of the cash will hurt newcomers in his province.

The federal Conservatives say Ontario has no right to demand more money per immigrant than other provinces.

For the third year in a row, Ottawa is chopping the amount of settlement funding it is giving Ontario, which has been plagued by weak economic growth as its manufacturing base struggles to recover from the 2008-2009 recession.

Federal Immigration Minister Jason Kenney announced on Friday that Ontario will receive $314.9-million in the next fiscal year, 2012-13. That’s a decline from $346.5-million this year, from $390.4-million in 2010-11 and $390.7-million in 2009-10.

Settlement funding for every other province will rise or remain constant next year.

“We believe it is only fair that settlement allocations across Canada should be based on the share of newcomers that provinces and territories have,” Mr. Kenney said.

Ontario’s share of new Canadian immigrants has declined to 52 per cent in 2010 from 64 per cent in 2005, as more newcomers chose to settle in Western and Atlantic Canada. Federal officials who provided these figures say the trend has continued in 2011.

But Ontario’s Immigration Minister, Charles Sousa, is crying foul over the dwindling dollars, saying Ottawa is short-changing his province.

He points out Ontario remains Canada’s No. 1 destination for immigrants.

Mr. Sousa said the latest funding cut will deny Ontario $31-million and leave the deficit-ridden province short of what it needs to help immigrants during weak economic times.

“It will hit newcomers in Ontario especially hard at a time when the province could most benefit from the valuable contributions they bring,” the provincial minister said.

“These unfair cuts will deny thousands … access to services that will help them find jobs and learn new skills.”

The Ontario minister said Ottawa is to blame for the decline in immigrants, saying the long waits to process applications has become a bottleneck for newcomers trying to settle in his province.

“Thousands of people destined for Ontario are stuck in a huge applications backlog that forces many to wait as much as seven years before they can set foot in our province,” Mr. Sousa said.

“This system is not working.”

A spokeswoman for Mr. Kenney rejected Ontario’s accusation.

“An immigrant applying under the federal skilled worker program applying today to go to Toronto would be there in under 12 months,” Candice Malcolm said.

“The fact is a lot more immigrants are choosing to go west.”

Immigration lawyer Richard Kurland said he thinks Ontario’s appeal for newcomers will recover as the economic conditions change.

“It will always bounce back,” he said.

But he added that Ontario could do a better job of wooing skilled workers by building a provincial system that actively recruits and selects the immigrants it needs.

“While other provinces have fully embraced their provincial constitutional responsibility of selecting immigrants … Ontario has effectively abdicated its ability to engage in the immigration dossier in a serious way.”

Mr. Kurland said it’s logical for Ottawa to finance and promote immigration outside Central Canada as a means of ensuring that newcomers don’t simply cluster in major centres such as the Greater Toronto Area.

“If you want to send immigrants to our hinterland and retain them there, it makes common sense to shift resources outside Ontario to places where settlement services are sparse,” he said.

“Why pay federally for something that municipalities and provincial services are already doing” in places such as Ontario, Mr. Kurland said.