New immigration legislation, Bill C-11, has passed the Senate and yesterday received royal assent.
Public attention has been focused on its refugee provisions, since most, if not all, terrorists enter Canada as refugee claimants. But the parts of the bill dealing with immigration have equally serious implications for Canadian society and the economy. These, however, have been largely overlooked in the post-Sept. 11 preoccupation with terrorism and the implications for keeping our border open with United States.
The reluctance of Elinor Caplan, the Minister of Immigration, to make changes to the bill was linked not only to an unwillingness to tamper with a badly and obviously flawed refugee determination system but also the desire to expedite passage of the immigration components. The new provisions in the latter are designed to gain political support for the Liberal party -- at considerable cost to the economy and serious implications for the stability of Canadian society.
When she tabled the bill, Ms. Caplan made much of the fact it was aimed at "closing the back door" while "opening the front door wider" for people to come to Canada. In fact, the changes do more to widen the back door than close it. And there is no question the front door is being flung open even wider -- but not in ways that serve the country's best interests.
One of the principal areas in which the new law differs from the old is in making it easier to sponsor relatives. While no one would deny an immigrant the right to bring in a spouse and dependent children, the priority we have given to welcoming extended family members has resulted in a dramatic fall in the economic performance of immigrants over the past two decades and increasing difficulties in the capacity of many newcomers to integrate into the workforce and Canadian society.
Immigration policies must also take into account the economic interests of the receiving country. Priority should be given to the skilled immigrants who are most likely to make a contribution. Family-class immigrants, in contrast, do not have to bring with them any job or language skills and many are much less likely than independent immigrants to find good jobs. This has been reflected in a decline in the economic performance of immigrants who entered Canada following passage of the immigration act in the late 1970s, when priority shifted from skilled independents to relatives.
Immigrants who came to Canada before that bill typically earned more than Canadian-born workers. The earnings of more recent arrivals, however, have fallen 40% below the levels of earlier immigrants and the Canadian-born alike. Moreover, among the various categories of immigrants, family-class members alone show an increase in the use of welfare the longer they stay in Canada.
On the assumption that increasing the opportunities for bringing in someone's relatives, as opposed to giving priority to skilled independents, is more likely to win votes in the next election, the new law will reduce the length of the sponsorship requirement from 10 years to three for spouses and common-law partners. It will also lower the age at which one can sponsor a relative from 19 to 18, increase the age at which someone can be sponsored from under-19 to under-22 and remove restrictions on bringing in spouses and dependent children who are likely to make excessive demands on health or social services.
The influence of those lobbying for wider family-class provisions and the government's apparent belief that responding to their demands would reap political dividends is evident in how Ottawa has dealt with the provision for bringing in parents (whose sponsorship constitutes the key link in bringing large numbers of extended family members to Canada). This was originally to be left in the regulations, where it could be changed without recourse to Parliament if it became clear it was not serving the national interest.
Under pressure from lobbyists, however, the government moved this provision from the regulations to the Act, where it will be much more difficult to change. Our policy in this regard differs dramatically from that of Australia, which has placed a priority on skilled immigrants and which, while still allowing immigrants to bring in their parents, does so in a manner that does not provide a means of sponsoring dozens of extended family members who lack qualifications.
Shifting the focus of the country's immigration laws to give priority to skilled immigrants over the family class would not mean Canada must abandon its policy of welcoming people from all parts of the world. The majority of our newcomers would continue to come from the developing world, albeit from a wider variety of countries and with greater diversity since preference would no longer be concentrated on the extended families of persons already here.
Sadly, however, Ms. Caplan and her supporters in Cabinet appear unable or unwilling to make the connection between the interests of the country and the provisions of the immigration legislation she rammed through Parliament. The disconnect between her political agenda and the welfare of Canadians is further underlined by her stated intention of raising immigration targets for the coming year -- at the very time an economic downturn is taking place and increasing numbers of Canadian-born and immigrants alike are going to have difficulty finding jobs.
This new immigration legislation raises important questions for the Americans as to how serious we are about fighting terrorism -- with all the implications this has for keeping our border open. It will have negative effects in other respects for our economy as well as for the social fabric of Canada. We can only hope more realistic and responsible voices prevail within the government on this critical issue.
