Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Social Affairs, Science and Technology
Issue 15 - Evidence
OTTAWA, Wednesday, May 28, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 4:15 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in divisions 11, 17, 20, 27 and 30 of part 6 of Bill C-31, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures. (topic: Divisions 11 and 27 of part 6)
Senator Kelvin Kenneth Ogilvie (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Welcome to the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology.
[English]
I'm Kelvin Ogilvie, a senator from Nova Scotia and chair of the committee. I'm going to ask my colleagues to introduce themselves, starting on my left.
Senator Eggleton: Art Eggleton, a senator from Toronto and deputy chair of this committee.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: Hello, I am Maria Chaput, senator from Manitoba.
[English]
Senator Nancy Ruth: Nancy Ruth, Ontario.
Senator Enverga: Tobias Enverga from Ontario
Senator Meredith: Senator Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Stewart Olsen: Carolyn Stewart Olsen from New Brunswick.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
Senator Seidman: Judith Seidman from Montreal, Quebec.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. I want to remind my colleagues that we have two sessions today. The first one, the one we are about to start, deals with Division 11, the Museums Act, and the second one deals with Division 27, the Old Age Security Act. This session will end no later than 5:15 and the second session will end no later than 6:15. Immediately following the end of the second session, we will go into an in-camera session to give drafting instructions on these two divisions.
Colleagues, with that understanding, it's now my pleasure to invite our guests to present before us. We have two groups, the Canadian Museum of History and Historica Canada. In the first group, from the Canadian Museum of History, we have Mark O'Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer; and David Loye, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President. It's my understanding that Mr. O'Neill will make the presentation. I'm going to invite you to make your presentation and then I will introduce our second witness.
Mark O'Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Museum of History: Thank you very much, chair. Good afternoon, senators. It seems like just a short time ago I was before this committee to talk to you about the act establishing the new Canadian Museum of History and I'm delighted to be here before you again. I always enjoy these opportunities to address the Senate.
Thank you for inviting us today. I'm here with my colleague David Loye, who is the chief operating officer of our museum corporation and senior vice president. He will be assisting me with some of the technical questions senators may have.
The Canadian Museum of History would be honoured to assume the administration of these important programs, that is, the Virtual Museum of Canada and the Online Works of Reference. They complement our new mandate and would help us pursue our strategic goals as a national institution. At the same time, I think our museum is uniquely positioned to maintain and strengthen these programs for the benefit of all concerned.
[Translation]
The statutory mandate of the Canadian Museum of History is to enhance Canadians' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of events, experiences, people and objects that reflect and have shaped Canada's history and identity. Put more simply, our mission is to tell the story of Canada and its people in all its dimensions.
That is also the ultimate purpose of both the Virtual Museum of Canada and the Online Works of Reference. Both programs help Canadians understand their shared history and culture. Both help Canadians appreciate the achievements and experiences of their compatriots, past and present.
[English]
The Virtual Museum does so primarily as an aggregator of digital information produced by a network of member institutions throughout the country. Its website features a rich and diverse array of exhibits, collections, videos, teaching resources and other engaging Canadian content.
The museum also promotes the creation of new digital content through the Virtual Exhibits Investment Program. The Virtual Museum includes online resources not only from museums but also government agencies, educational institutions and private sector organizations. The website provides the public with easy access to information about Canada and its people.
The other program slated for transfer, senators, is the Online Works of Reference. This project provides free access to two unique and outstanding publications, The Canadian Encyclopedia and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography.
The Canadian Encyclopedia is published by Historica Canada. The Dictionary of Canadian Biography is produced through a partnership between the University of Toronto and l'Université Laval. In a world awash with online information of questionable veracity, these works are a trustworthy and comprehensive source of information about Canada and its people.
In short, the Virtual Museum of Canada, the Online Works of Reference and the Canadian Museum of History have much in common. Bringing them closer together would create exciting new opportunities for collaboration and knowledge-sharing.
[Translation]
Under its new mandate, the Canadian Museum of History is striving to build new and stronger partnerships with other institutions across the country. We want to ensure that all efforts to preserve and promote Canada's history and culture are as effective and efficient as possible.
Our first order of business will be to issue a new call for proposals under the Virtual Exhibits Investment Program. We will also be prepared to accept the transfer of responsibility from the Department of Canadian Heritage, at the appropriate time, to ensure a seamless transition.
[English]
The museum would like to acknowledge and thank Canadian Heritage for their excellent work in creating and stewarding both the Virtual Museum of Canada and the Online Works of Reference. We would also like to thank the department for its cooperation in working with the museum during this transition.
I will conclude, Mr. Chair, by noting again that we are ready, eager and able to take on these new responsibilities. We think the transfer will be beneficial to our museum, Canada's wider cultural community and, most important, to Canadians.
Thank you, senators, for your attention. I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will now invite Mr. Anthony Wilson-Smith, who is the president of Historica Canada to make his presentation.
Anthony Wilson-Smith, President, Historica Canada: Thank you for the invitation. It's always a pleasure to talk about our organization, especially here today. In keeping with Mr. O'Neill's remarks, it's also a pleasure to sit alongside representatives of the Canadian Museum of History, a project we were very much supportive of in terms of mandate.
I would like to give a quick overview of our organization. I wouldn't be as presumptuous to take for granted that you all know everything we do or in fact anything as such.
[Translation]
Historica Canada is the country's largest organization dedicated to enhancing awareness about the importance of our history and the values of Canadian citizenship. Our programs reach over 8 million Canadians every year. Our board of directors is comprised of some of the most distinguished citizens of this country, and a number of them are members of the Order of Canada. All programs are offered in both official languages, free of charge for appropriate users.
[English]
They include the Heritage Minutes, Aboriginal Arts and Stories contest, the Canadian Citizenship Challenge, Memory Project and Memory Project Speakers Bureau, Passages Canada, Encounters with Canada, and the starting point for my appearance here today, The Canadian Encyclopedia.
The encyclopedia has existed in its initial book form since the mid-1980s, and solely digital form since the early 2000s. Last November, we undertook the most ambitious refreshment of content since its inception. We built in greater interactivity, more video streaming and sound, new timelines, curated photo galleries and a more rigorous system for updating content on a close to daily basis.
The response was measurably gratifying. In September of last year, the first month of our relaunch, we had 48,000 unique visitors. This month, which is still of course unfinished, the total is 408,000 to date, meaning an eight-fold increase. The number of page views by users has doubled, going from 873,000 in May 2013 to 1.6 million this month so far.
We have seven full-time editors, a country-wide network of hundreds of researchers, writers and other contributors, and a reputation for accuracy such that we are an accepted tool for research at secondary and post-secondary schools across Canada. In fact, we now offer four different forms of academic citations depending on the preference of post- secondary institutions for students using us for research papers, and that use also extends abroad. I would add to this that we are the only national encyclopedia, to our knowledge, in existence, although we have been advised that there is one in a form in Sri Lanka as well.
In terms of today's subject matter, I can be very brief, and happily so. Historica Canada has an excellent relationship with Heritage Canada, and we enjoy a similar relationship with the Canadian War Museum and the Canadian Museum of History. Even before this new funding arrangement was announced, Mr. O'Neill and I were discussing ways in which we could further the cooperative relationship between our two organizations. This change, by aligning our organizations more directly with each other, should help to contribute to that end.
I also want to say how pleased I was by the thoughtfulness of Mr. O'Neill and Mr. David Loye, the chief operating officer, who took the trouble to meet to discuss the changeover some time ago and to provide assurances that we can move forward with confidence. The biggest priority at our end now is arranging uninterrupted funding when this changeover takes place, which comes shortly. As a nonprofit organization, I think you can understand that regular cash flow is essential to keeping our programs operating uninterrupted and we're grateful for efforts to ensure the transfer takes place seamlessly.
[Translation]
The Canadian History Museum's mandate is to further enhance Canadians' appreciation of the events and people that have shaped their past. This description also applies to Historica Canada and the Canadian Encyclopedia. That is why we have begun preliminary discussions in order to determine if programs such as the Encyclopedia, the Heritage Minutes and the Memory Project could be integrated with the Canadian History Museum.
[English]
Finally, as president of a non-partisan organization that deals with Heritage Canada and the museums on a regular basis, I want to praise the people at both. These exceptionally dedicated public servants approach their jobs with rigour and a sense of mission. They hold us to high account to ensure we maintain proper quality standards in the content we produce and that we spend the money invested in us in a prudent and cost-effective manner. At the same time, we're able to produce our content without any editorial engagement or interference from our funders. We appreciate this and we look forward to working with all concerned, including Mr. O'Neill and his colleagues, on these and other future ventures.
Thank you for your attention. I'm happy to answer questions or requirements for information that may arise.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will open the floor to questions from my colleagues, beginning with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: The Virtual Museum and the entities that apply for these funds I understand are quite varied. They include aquariums, botanical gardens, all sorts of places. Do you or your staff have much experience in dealing with these organizations? How will you have the experience to be able to deal fairly with these groups? Not all of them have a physical facility like yours. Some of them have things online but can be very important to telling the history of Canada. How are you going to deal with all of that, which has come outside of your purview up until now?
Mr. O'Neill: I thank the senator for the question. One of the things we're doing is to look at the terms of reference for the program that will implement eligibility criteria. We want to make sure that as many heritage organizations as possible can benefit from the program. Operating at arm's length from the government, we do believe that our mandate gives us a fair degree of flexibility in terms of who we can partner with. For example, in our new history museum's network we are encouraging groups like heritage sites, libraries and archives, non-museum entities to be part of that network.
I take your point quite well, senator, that there are organizations and institutions that are part of this network that need to continue to be part of it, and perhaps others that are not benefiting from the network that could. I conclude by pointing out that our museum staff, given the many disciplines represented in both museums, do have a great deal of experience with other cultural and heritage institutions across the country and in fact know them quite well.
Senator Eggleton: So you'll have expertise to deal with botanical gardens and aquariums?
Mr. O'Neill: We have, for example, archaeologists who have worked with historic sites and heritage places for many years. We have folklorists who can work with a number of institutions. We have partnered on some occasions with natural cultural heritage institutions. I think we have a lot of that expertise, and where we don't, we will be relying upon the wider museums community to help us, groups like the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Canadian Museums Association.
I would add quickly that you may know that the Virtual Museum in its current form has an editorial board.
Senator Eggleton: I was going to ask you about that.
Mr. O'Neill: Our view at this point is to put together some sort of an advisory committee outside of the museum with the wider community to help us make those decisions about funding.
Senator Eggleton: Would you keep that editorial board going or the people on it?
Mr. O'Neill: I think we would probably form it into a community advisory committee that would play a similar role, but I think we might look at putting wider and different kinds of representation on that committee.
Senator Eggleton: Would that committee, whatever it is, report to your board of trustees? Would your board of trustees become involved in this?
Mr. O'Neill: Likely not. I see this, senator, as an operational issue for the museum. I think there would be a committee of managers and internal content experts who would make decisions in concert with the advisory committee.
Senator Eggleton: The funds that they would get, I take it you would administer funds that they get under the program now. So how would you sort that out?
Don't you also apply for some of the funds? You're going to apply for some of the funds yourself, but also you're going to determine who among the other groups gets funds?
Mr. O'Neill: I'm going to defer that to my Chief Operating Officer David Loye, who has been working on the details of the transfer of the project.
David Loye, Chief Operating Officer and Senior Vice President, Canadian Museum of History: Yes, in the past, the museum has applied for funding under the program, and we have already recognized that we would not be able to do so in the future. We would be ineligible; you can't administer a program and apply for funding at the same time. But there will be a process.
One of our objectives is to keep the funding at the same level that has been in place to date: a $2 million program for the investment side of the Virtual Museum and another $200,000 for what's called Community Memories.
Senator Eggleton: You wouldn't be taking that off and using it for another program?
Mr. Loye: No.
Senator Eggleton: You would keep that level of funding?
Mr. Loye: Absolutely.
Senator Seidman: I'd just like to know if you foresee any unintended consequences at the loss for Heritage Canada and the gain for the museum.
Mr. O'Neill: I don't know that it would be appropriate for me to speak about or on behalf of the department.
A gain for the museum is an additional educational product for us to engage Canadians electronically in the sharing of their heritage. Part of the desire in creating the new mandate for the museum was to enhance the national footprint of these museums for all Canadians.
The Virtual Museum fits in exceedingly well. We already have another virtual museum that you may not be aware of: the Virtual Museum of New France, which exists entirely on the Internet. We believe the advantage for the War Museum, which will be part of this as well — incidentally, military museums will be able to apply for funding and assistance from this program. We believe the benefit is that the Virtual Museum and the Online Works of Reference will allow us to reach more Canadians offsite, electronically, with better access to very authoritative sources of information.
Senator Seidman: The Virtual Museum has a link to Artefacts Canada - Humanities. That houses 800,000 images from museums across the country. That link takes you to the Canadian Heritage Information Network's Professional Exchange, which is a Government of Canada website. Will that program be included in the transfer of responsibility?
Mr. O'Neill: No. The Canadian Heritage Information Network, CHIN, is not a part of the transfer involved in this project.
Senator Seidman: Okay. I have one last question: How will the Canadian Museum of History account for the money it spends to develop the online content?
Mr. Loye: Again, we publish right now quarterly financial statements as a Crown corporation, together with a year- end annual report. We also submit a corporate plan through an annual process. Those documents will include the same level of detail we announce for the other parts of our program. You will see the Virtual Museum of Canada as well as our funding of the Online Works of Reference showing up in our corporate reporting documents at the end of the next fiscal year, 2014-15.
Senator Seidman: Okay, that's good. Thank you. If I could ask you one question, Mr. Wilson-Smith: The Canadian Encyclopedia is one of your programs. Will it continue to receive funding via the Online Works of Reference administered by the museum?
Mr. Wilson-Smith: Yes, that's certainly our understanding. I met with Mr. Loye and Mr. O'Neill two and a half weeks ago, which was a courtesy I very much appreciated, because you can understand we had concerns. We were advised similarly and kept in the loop very well by the people with whom we often deal at Heritage Canada that this was taking place.
We felt we had a comfort level based on the assurance and the strength of the relationships and the credibility of the people involved that there would not be any negative effect to this, and we certainly still feel that way.
Senator Seidman: Good. Thank you.
Senator Eaton: It's a wonderful initiative, and it's obvious that the Canadian Museum of History should be the ones to have this Virtual Museum.
I guess what worries me — and I'm glad it doesn't seem to worry the two of you — is that you have $25 million to refit the museum. That is not that much money to refit galleries. Having sat on the board of the Royal Ontario Museum, the ROM, for many years, I know what it costs to refit a gallery. And then to create this wonderful new Virtual Museum, are you quite confident you have the funds to do that?
Mr. O'Neill: As the committee may be aware, in addition to the $25 million for the renovation of the history halls, we've also committed to raising another $5 million on our own.
No museum, including a national museum, will tell you that they ever have enough. Anyone who tells you that — I'd be very interested in what sort of museological practice they have.
That being said, we are confident that, with respect to the new Canadian History Hall project, we will be able to develop a compelling, state-of-the-art presentation for Canadians on July 1, 2017.
With respect to the Virtual Museum of Canadian, the funds to administer the museum and the Online Works of Reference were also transferred to us. Frankly, it's my own view that these two projects in their entirety may be even more compelling for fundraising efforts and community support when we go forward in terms of what this new Canadian Museum of History can offer Canadians and those who wish to support this initiative.
Senator Eaton: It's wonderful. The first part of my question is: Will you relate it to your own galleries; will you use artifacts you presently have in the museum and relate them to your own galleries? The second part is: Will you go to the McCord Museum in Montreal, the Glenbow Museum out west and other museums that have Canadian artifacts and go through their stores and put those online as well?
Mr. O'Neill: Again, that is an excellent question. The answer is ``yes.'' I want to give you one example of how we will be using the Online Works of Reference. I'm not sure if we have even talked about this, Anthony, but I spoke to Mr. Wilson in Toronto, the editor of the Dictionary of Canadian Biography at the University of Toronto. We will be using both of those tools in ways they have not been used before. We will be implementing them directly into our new Canadian History Hall. We have 48,000 square feet to fill. At various kiosks along the way, visitors will be able to access both the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and The Canadian Encyclopedia, and they will be able to use these tools in their museum visit online. That's just one example.
Yes, we will be engaging other museums across the country, in both our history museum network and other online efforts. Did you want to add anything?
Mr. Loye: Part of how the Virtual Museum of Canada works is there are calls for proposals. Our objective is to get a call out as soon as possible after the approval of the act that transfers the program to the museum, and we're anticipating that will be at the end of June this year.
Then it's up to the museum community to respond. A typical response is 65 to 75 proposals. Then we go through a process of evaluating these proposals and then issuing the approvals to the recipients for funding.
The program is a popular one. At this point, the community is eagerly awaiting the call for proposals to submit their applications.
Senator Eaton: One last question to you, Mr. Wilson-Smith: Do you see this being used for Canadian history in schools? We all know how little and slight Canadian history programs are in most provinces in this country.
Mr. Wilson-Smith: I'm very glad you raised that point, senator. We never tire of reminding everyone that only in four of the 13 jurisdictions — meaning provinces and territories — in this country is the teaching of Canadian history mandatory. That is one of the reasons why focusing on schools and young people is a particular preoccupation — not just a mandate but a continual focus.
This offers the potential for the proverbial ``gift that keeps on giving.'' To give you an example, we have about 70 to 75 Heritage Minutes, many of them paid for by Canadian Heritage. Our goal is not to sell those or to get any further compensation for them but rather to get them out there in front of people. We at Historica Canada are increasingly what I describe as a digital content provider, focused on history and citizenship issues.
This now offers a gathering place for the material that Mr. O'Neill and his team choose to put together, subject to the outlines put in. But we have things like this — we have about 2,500 interviews done with veterans of World War II and the Korean War, and some from Afghanistan, as well, which have been verified by our in-house historians and match the highest levels of academic requirements for validity. We use an example of that. We are delighted at any possibility we have of the kind of thing that Mark talks about, of the encyclopedia being shown there. That's just turning back to people what was given to us in the first place to great advantage.
Senator Eaton: It's too bad we can't use them with immigration settlement programs so immigrants coming to this program would have a first look at Canadian history.
Mr. Wilson-Smith: We often have discussions within formal groups and we run the Passages Canada program, which puts newcomers from other countries and cultures into schools and other public institutions to talk about their experiences coming to Canada and to hear the responses of people otherwise. In fact, to educate the two sides we keep videos, which we post online, of some of our speakers. So that's outside of the mandate of history, but it is the type of thing that we do as well. We are forever looking at opportunities within the history sector, which is our prime preoccupation — to find audience.
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, I wanted to ask the Museum of History a question. You have been pushed fairly hard in the last year with the new Canada Hall to deal with what I call the hidden histories — the history of race, class, gender, disability — and to talk about discrimination within Canadian history. It's in that context I want to ask questions about the Virtual Museum and your digital information investment program.
First, how much money is it? That's one thing I want to know. How are you going to break it out? In the speech that was given, you said the museum does so primarily as an aggregate of digital information produced by a network of member institutions. Well, the groups I have talked about are not member institutions and don't have places that they can apply to.
Mr. Loye, what you said in your comments a few minutes ago related to institutions, although in the speech it did mention private sector organizations. So my question is: How are the invisible histories of Canadians going to be made public? How will they access funding, and what percentage of funding will you intentionally set aside so that they will get a leg up on how to make our history public?
Mr. Loye: To the first part of your question in terms of the investment dollars, $2.1 million has been identified for the online works of reference. That's the amount of funding that has been provided in the past by Canadian Heritage, which is being transferred to the Museum of History.
In terms of the Virtual Museum of Canada, the direct program support is $2.2 million. That is broken out as $2 million into the Virtual Museum Investment Program and $200,000 goes towards what is called Community Memories Program. The difference between those two programs is that one is targeted more towards medium and large museums, which is the $2 million, and the other is targeted towards smaller museums, very few staff, and that's how the program is split up. In terms of how it's structured, we are trying to bring over to us how it has been structured in the past.
There are two general themes to how organizations can apply. One is a very open-ended theme, people put forth their proposals. The second theme is linked to the Road to 2017, which is a program obviously with Confederation at the end, but a lot of the anniversaries and centenaries along the way. Those are the two program themes. We have not at this point in time identified what amount of money will go to which theme, and our view is to be open to what comes at us from proposals and then obviously choosing the best proposals with the funds available.
Mr. O'Neill: Mr. Chair, I will try to answer the second part of the senator's question. First of all, I think it's important that the Virtual Museum continues to focus on the Canadian museums community. That's why this particular tool was created and that's the expectation of the community. That being said, there are many innovative projects, both online and physically, of museums across the country working with equality-seeking groups on a wide range of important issues that deal with the struggle for justice. Could there be more? I think there could be.
I look forward, for example, to the opening later on this year of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg, and there will be opportunities for museums like ours to partner with that museum. I also think we can find ways to encourage the creation of more virtual exhibits that deal with these issues within the Virtual Museum of Canada, and we have a capacity to do that. Working with an advisory committee of museologists and others, we can look at how to create projects that deal with, as you say, some of the issues that perhaps have not made it into the mainstream of museums in this country but need to be there, and I think we can find ways to do it.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Part of my story is that since the 1990s there have been various federal government programs for digitization of things, whether they are summer employment jobs or just a whole host of programs. There was, during the 1970s and '80s in particular, across Canada a whole series of women's diaries that were published, particularly out of Saskatchewan and other places. We have never, ever had a successful grant application received by Heritage Canada, Industry Canada or any other ministry in which these programs were there to digitize women's history. We never got money. How is it this program will help digitize those documents that are about to be lost now that they are nearly 50 years old?
Mr. O'Neill: I'm not sure that the Virtual Museum of Canada, senator, is going to be able to address the area of digitization in the same way that digitization has been addressed by government programs and by museums on their own across the country. Many museums have an active program of digitization, and they have had them now for 15 or 20 years, understanding the digitization of cultural assets and archives and so on. But I think where the Virtual Museum can make a particular contribution is by bringing to light some of those issues. When you create those virtual exhibitions, by definition some of those objects and stories will have to be available in an electronic format.
I don't believe the Virtual Museum will answer all of those questions, but I think it can make a significant contribution to addressing them.
Senator Nancy Ruth: My concern, Mr. O'Neill, is that you keep relying on the museum community to do this, advise you and suggest. They have made many of these communities invisible — it isn't they have made them invisible, they simply haven't thought about it. I want to know, with this new funding, what is the responsibility of the Canadian Museum of History to make these communities invisible?
Mr. O'Neill: May I respond very quickly, Mr. Chair? It's a very important issue the senator is raising. I don't have an equivocal answer for you, but I would like to tell you that one of the things we are doing in the Canadian History Hall, for example, is working with the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives in Toronto, an organization I have gone down to and visited, as an example, which I think has collected memory and experiences that need to be a part of museum experience that we are developing in the new Canadian History Hall. I raise that only because we are reaching out to communities and organizations that we haven't before, and I believe we can do the same thing through the Virtual Museum of Canada. We will find a way to create those kinds of synergies between communities and museums that I think can be very helpful for the country.
Senator Enverga: I like The Canadian Encyclopedia. I have used it before, not that I do not want to do any more research.
We are going to be transferring responsibility for the Virtual Museum of Canada and online works of reference to the Canadian Museum of History. Have you thought of any enhancement if it goes to you, or is it just going to be a transfer of one hard drive to another? Is it going to be the same or do you have any plans to make it better or enhance it at all?
Mr. Loye: Yes. In the short term, our focus is on transferring and that will be our objective for the first few months. But the official at the Department of Canadian Heritage had very well advanced plans to modernize and bring enhancements to the site, so we will be looking at those plans and also incorporating them in our longer-range plans over the next two to three years. That includes bringing new technologies, making sure the site is accessible by mobile devices and has more multi-media.
Essentially, it is building upon the work that was under way at Canadian Heritage as we go forward, but yes, there are plans not just to make those changes but to maintain the site over a long term, you have to put aside resources to modify the site every year. If not, websites become stale. That's something we are trying to plan into our longer-range thinking.
Senator Enverga: What will happen to the Virtual Museum of Canada and the online works of reference? What is going to happen to them? Are they going to be phased out or will you take up their catalogue? I like the work of the Canadian Encyclopedia people and I don't know if you'll be using the same types of ideas, same things for intellectual property.
Mr. Wilson-Smith: We certainly expect to continue to produce The Canadian Encyclopedia in precisely the same fashion that we do now, along with other things that are still funded by Heritage, such as Heritage Minutes. To your concerns, senator, as well as those of Senator Nancy Ruth, I would add that we see this as a tremendous opportunity for all associations to play the kind of role that was raised just now.
For example, of the 70 to 75 Heritage Minutes programs we have now, about half a dozen deal with the struggle for women's rights, the struggle to win the vote and the work of the Famous Five, Nelly McClung and others, and about half a dozen deal with Aboriginal concerns, mistreatment on occasion, as well as heroism in times of war and otherwise. On the War of 1812, we featured a contribution of a Black regiment specifically and another cited the Aboriginal contribution. We have done minutes on the persecution faced by the Japanese community during time of war and on young Chinese workers on the railroad.
As these occasions arise, events are targeted across the country and everybody comes together in a larger community under the auspices of this, we then cooperate and say, and these are not going to be discussions or agreements, well, if you are doing something on a women's issue or an issue of a previously marginalized element of society, perhaps we can bring this to the table; someone else can do similarly; and now you have the makings of a larger conversation than you had previously. Those efforts that we focused on bring this to the public attention of a much larger forum than was the case before.
Senator Enverga: What is the timeline for this? Will this be transferred right away? When is the planned enhancement to be done?
Mr. Loye: Approval of the proposed legislation will enact the transfer. There is a clause that says ``upon approval of the Governor-in-Council.'' We feel that we have progressed enough with the transfer to be comfortable with a go-live date, which we are targeting to be September 30th. We will approach through government for the Governor-in-Council to effect the actual transfer.
[Translation]
Senator Chaput: I find the partnership you are pursuing very interesting. Mr. Smith, how long has Historica Canada existed?
Mr. Wilson-Smith: That is a difficult question to answer, because it was an organization founded by Mr. Bronfman in 1991 or 1989; later, in 2009, the Historica Foundation and the Dominion Institute merged, and we decided to change the name — but not the mandate — last year.
Senator Chaput: Where do you get your funding?
Mr. Wilson-Smith: It is a mix. A portion of it comes from the Government of Canada. This includes Heritage Canada and other departments. We also have a contingent of, it must be said, generous people who work for us. There is Mr. Bronfman and others, and a few people from the private sector.
Senator Chaput: Your mission, your mandate is very similar to that of the museum. That is why you see it working out very well. You said when speaking of the transfer of programs that your programs were available in both official languages, free of charge, for appropriate users.
Mr. Wilson-Smith: Yes.
Senator Chaput: Would they continue to be available in both languages, free of charge to users, after the transfer to the museum?
Mr. Wilson-Smith: Yes, absolutely. In fact, that is a condition set out by the federal government.
Senator Chaput: Will you develop anymore? What will your role be after the transfer?
Mr. Wilson-Smith: The programs will remain under our purview. We are transferring money, not responsibility. On my end, for example, I will remain as editor of the Canadian Encyclopedia.
[English]
Senator Meredith: Mr. O'Neill, always great to see you and hear your presentation. You talked about your eagerness to receive the transfer. To Senator Nancy Ruth's point with respect to capturing the cultural women's issues and visible minorities, how will you go about doing that, apart from the call for proposal? How will you vet these and rate them in terms of what goes into the museum of history? Can you elaborate on that a bit?
Mr. O'Neill: Our early-stages thinking about how we can best connect to the wider museum community and get those multiple perspectives and voices is really encouraging us to go in the direction of having a very wide advisory committee to assist the museum. The advisory committee does not have to be composed of museums, completely and solely. In a country as diverse as Canada and as broad in perspectives in histories, we need to be conscious of that in the museum proper and in the virtual museum. We'll be looking for opportunities to engage a wide variety of perspectives and voices in the projects that we build.
There are opportunities for groups to partner with museum entities in developing those projects; and we want to encourage those. I know you have been to the War Museum, where we have had good success with telling the stories of Ukrainian Canadians and Japanese Canadians, and many other groups in Canadian society. We intend to do the same in the Canadian history hall. We have to find a way to produce meaningful virtual exhibits that tell the stories of diverse groups of Canadians in partnership with the museum. We are committed to doing that, and we will find a way to do it.
Senator Meredith: The process, Mr. Loye, of the vetting of the proposals?
Mr. Loye: Currently some mandatory requirements are looked at first. Obviously, every proposal has to be within the established budget and needs a production development plan. Beyond that, there is a ranking of additional elements, much like you would find in a normal RFP process. In the process, we look at content, the technology proposed, the proponent's ability to deliver and at who they are partnering with. Those are the criteria established to date. Our plan is to adopt the same criteria in the short term going forward.
Senator Meredith: Will you establish an advisory board to do the vetting? Will they be outside individuals or from within the museum?
Mr. Loye: Currently there is an editorial board at Canadian Heritage. Our plan is to put together an advisory committee of both museum experts and our staff.
Senator Meredith: Composed of how many individuals?
Mr. Loye: At this time, we haven't decided. There will be experts from within the organization and from outside.
The Chair: I thank the witnesses for being with us today. Clearly there is interest in this. Obviously, the opportunity to make information available to Canadians on a wider basis to deal with the issues covered under your responsibilities is probably a good thing on each issue.
With regard to the issue of getting information to students, if there is information online, it's online, which at least makes things more available than if there are hard copies only that need to be dealt with through the normal channels of delivery.
We can hope not only that the optimism you see with regard to the organizations themselves but also the availability of information will be broader to Canadians. As some questions have indicated, perhaps it will be broader in content down the road. On behalf of colleagues, I thank you very much for being with us today.
Colleagues, in the next portion of our meeting, we are dealing with Division 27, the Old Age Security Act. We have two groups represented here. Online and no stranger to this committee, we welcome back Martin Collacott, Spokesperson of the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform. Thank you for joining us by video conference, Mr. Collacott.
We also have with us the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, represented by Susan Eng, Vice President of Advocacy; and Harpreet Sachal, a Member. I understand, Ms. Eng, you will be making the presentation?
Susan Eng, Vice President, Advocacy, Canadian Association of Retired Persons: My colleague and I will be sharing the five minutes.
The Chair: You will be sharing the five minutes. I'm ruthless in that regard. Since our visitor is at a greater distance, perhaps with your indulgence, I will invite Mr. Collacott to speak first. I will remind him that he is also limited to five minutes. Mr. Collacott, please go ahead.
Martin Collacott, Spokesperson, Centre for Immigration Policy Reform: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be speaking on Division 27 of Part 6 of Bill C-31, which, as you mentioned, relates to the Old Age Security Act. It's my understanding that the need for the proposed amendment to the act is to make it consistent with amendments to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations that were announced in on December 12, 2013, particularly to the extension from 10 to 20 years of the sponsorship period for parents and grandparents.
I'll begin by giving some background of what I take to be the reasons for the extension of the sponsorship period. In recent years, the opportunity to sponsor immigrant parents and grandparents has become so popular that the number of applications has far exceeded the annual intake and a backlog of more than 160,000 had accumulated by 2011. It was estimated in November 2011 the backlog would take eight years to clear and that with the rate new applications were coming in, by 2020, the backlog would increase to close to half a million with wait times of up to 15 years.
Needless to say, this was causing a great deal of frustration among both sponsors and those being sponsored, with the distinct possibility that some of the latter could die of old age without ever being admitted to Canada.
The government accordingly began to focus on how to reduce the backlog. But with the prospect of increasing the annual intake of immigrant seniors, the government also had to consider the cost of the program to Canadian taxpayers. This was not, in fact, the first time concerns over the cost of the program had come up. Back in 2004, the Liberal government in office at the time announced that annual intake, which had averaged over 20,000 for each of the previous 10 years, would be reduced to between 5,500 and 6,800 in 2005, a reduction of more than two thirds.
The government's resolve did not last long, however. In the face of strong opposition from groups representing immigrants and the prospect of a federal election in the not-too-distant future, the government announced in April 2005 that the targets for admission of parents and grandparents would be pushed back up to 18,000 for each of the subsequent two years.
The estimated costs were by no means inconsiderable. Since most sponsored parents and grandparents earn very little income in Canada, they pay little if anything in taxes that offset the benefits they receive here.
In 2011, the government estimated that the total health care costs incurred by each such individual in terms of their lifetime in Canada were around $160,000. This estimate was based on data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information. An alternative estimate made by economist Patrick Grady using figures from a C.D. Howe Institute study put the total at closer to $200,000 each.
In addition to health care costs, seniors also receive benefits in the form of Old Age Security, Guaranteed Income Supplements and other government transfers. Patrick Grady estimated those would total $152,000.
If we combine the government's estimate of $160,000 in health care costs for a sponsored senior with Grady's estimate of the cost of other benefits they receive, the total for sponsored parents and grandparents over the 20-year period they're expected to live in Canada comes to $312,000 per person. This isn't as precise an estimate as one might like to have, since it doesn't take into account what sponsored parents may pay in sales taxes, possibly property taxes and other taxes. By the same token, neither do these estimates take into account other benefits they receive from the government in terms of goods and services, such as police services, public transportation, national defence, et cetera.
Now, in order to reduce the backlog, the government set goals of admitting all together 70,000 sponsored parents and grandparents in the course of this year, last year and the year before. Based on the estimates I've just described, this will cost Canadian taxpayers something in excess of $21 billion — not million — billion during the lifetime of these seniors in Canada, and just over half of this will come from the health care system.
Given the very heavy cost of the sponsored parents and grandparents program to taxpayers, one might ask what are the arguments in favour of bringing them in. Probably what one hears most often is they can provide child care for their grandchildren — that is, the children of the sponsors — so that both the husband and wife of a sponsoring couple can enter the workforce. That's obviously of economic benefit to such families. The question has to be asked, however, whether taxpayers' money should be used to underwrite the cost of having such a caregiver — more than $300,000 each. If sponsors of parents and grandparents can be subsidized to this amount so they can have a baby-sitter, should not all families in Canada who need such services receive an equivalent amount?
I'm not sure to what extent the Canadian public is aware of just how much this program is costing them, although surveys suggest they do have some inkling. A Forum Poll taken last year, for example, found that those surveyed agreed by a margin of almost six to one that immigrants should be allowed to bring their spouses and dependent children with them but, when asked whether extended family members such and parents and grandparents should be allowed to accompany them, respondents registered their opposition by a margin of two and a half to one.
There are several other arguments in support of sponsoring parents and grandparents. I don't think I'll have time to go through them right now but I'd be happy to answer questions during the question period.
In terms of increasing the sponsor's responsibility from 10 to 20 years, this is still a rather modest gesture when one looks at the overall costs to taxpayers. One of the reasons for this extension of sponsorship is that there has been a marked tendency on the part of those sponsored to seek welfare as soon as the current 10-year sponsorship period is up.
Another relevant point is that, according to government statistics, 10 years after landing in Canada, sponsored parents and grandparents depend on Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement for 70 per cent their income, while the figure for seniors in general in Canada is 21 per cent. The rest of their income comes from pension plans that they've contributed to, CPP and so on.
In summary, the extension of the sponsorship period is a move in the right direction but may not go nearly far enough in relation to shifting the burden of the cost of sponsored seniors from the taxpayers to the sponsors. I would not be surprised if there was pressure to shift more of this responsibility in the future as the public becomes increasingly aware of just how much it is costing them.
Chairman, I did have two other points I wanted to make. Do I have time?
The Chair: I think you've exceeded your time. Perhaps you can bring them up during questions if they're relevant.
Mr. Collacott: Sure. Thank you.
The Chair: I think you've addressed the key point of the change to the division.
Ms. Eng: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Canadian Association of Retired Persons, CARP, is a non-partisan national organization with 300,000 members across the country in 60 chapters, one of which is in North Surrey. Mr. Harpreet Sachal represents that chapter. I'll let him give greater focus on the importance of immigrant reunification, the immigration of their parents and grandparents, to the social fabric.
From our perspective at CARP nationally, we believe that the current 10-year requirement that people wait until they can apply for GIS is an appropriate one and we see no reason to extend it. The reason is that a number of families run into situations where they are unable to keep up their responsibilities to look after their parent or grandparent and, despite having responsibilities, are unable to do so. There may be some estrangement and the access to some income support is a very important part of the process.
I am troubled by the suggestion that we are now starting to value and cost out the value of immigrants and their families as compared to what economic benefit they might bring. I would ask Mr. Sachal to talk about the specifics of why it is important, why we have this program, its importance to the social fabric in Canada and the proper balance.
Harpreet Sachal, Member, Canadian Association of Retired Persons: As Susan Eng has pointed out, family is the foundation, and when we come here to a new country, there are a lot of challenges immigrants face, and particularly when parents come. As it was pointed out, we have to see the cost benefit of looking after the children. The children are our future generation and we have to instill in them those values of which we are proud.
What is happening in society today is that we are finding that not much time is being given to the children by the parents because they don't have much time. It is the responsibility of the grandparents to teach them, instill in them those cultural and heritage values of which we are proud, of the integration of a value-based system.
Cost benefits we see on one side, but on the other hand we see if those foundations are not laid, we are finding in society today that children are straying and those moral values are not being instilled. If you go back, why our societies were so strong is because parents and grandparents were spending time with their children. But today, in this fast- paced life, especially for immigrant families when they come here, they have to run around looking for a job. To basically maintain themselves, they are not able to spend the time they should with their children.
Another issue we find is that we are already talking about the GIS for 10 years which they are waiting for. It is the low strata of income of society; they are in the range of $15,000 to $23,000. That is an additional help to the families, at least. They don't have much money to put their children through child support. They don't have the time or the knowledge. When the parents come to stay with them, it's a united family and those bonds are established with them.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I'm going to open up the floor to questions from my colleagues. We will start with Senator Eggleton.
Senator Eggleton: Getting parents and grandparents here has a lot more to do with uniting a family and family values and helping to educate young people, rather than just some baby-sitting services, as Mr. Collacott seems to suggest. I'm not sure about his numbers, either; I'd like to know what the department considers to be the correct numbers for the cost of seniors that come over here.
I would like to ask about this question of the 10 to 20 years. Are there any other provisions in the Immigration Act that require a 20-year sponsorship or is this just peculiar to this group of people, the parents and grandparents?
Ms. Eng: The immigration process is not my area of knowledge, but it's my understanding that this is the group that has had their sponsorship period extended from 10 to 20 years. I'm afraid I don't know if other members in the family class also have had anything extended.
Senator Eggleton: We don't have anyone from the department coming here, do we?
The Chair: The issue is to harmonize it with the immigration and refugee protection regulations, which increased it from 10 to 20 years.
Senator Eggleton: Yes, but have they done that for just parents and grandparents or have they done it for other sponsorships as well?
The Chair: With regard to this change, we're dealing only with parents and grandparents.
Senator Eggleton: I'm concerned about it being discriminatory for this category.
The issue of sponsors finding themselves unable to continue the sponsorship for 20 years now may be because a sponsor may die, there may be bankruptcy, health problems, losing jobs, all sorts of reasons. In addition to that, there's the whole question of elder abuse. Some people could find themselves in a circumstance where they're being abused and yet it would be hard to get out of the household they're in if in fact to do so would then leave them in the street, I suppose, and make them homeless. Perhaps we could get comments from both Ms. Eng and Mr. Collacott on that. How are we going to deal with those people?
Ms. Eng: Senator, it's a huge issue. As we have said, most loving families are willing and absolutely bound and honoured to look after their parents and grandparents once they've sponsored them, if they can, and they will do everything in order to keep the family together. But human beings being what they are, sometimes families become estranged, but more often than not the family that is sponsoring runs into financial difficulties. Although there are exceptions, they get release from the sponsorship if they die or go to jail or declare bankruptcy. There are no exceptions if the family runs into financial difficulty. Of course, if there is any estrangement and potential abuse, there are no exceptions.
Already under the current circumstances of 10 years, there are some — a small but important minority — that will face these difficulties. So expanding it from 10 years to 20 years simply doubles that problem.
The other issue, of course, is that the average age of many of the people immigrating under this class is about 60. When you're asking them to wait 20 years, you're really saying, ``you're never going to get it.'' If that's the intent of the legislation then it should say so, rather than simply add another number. The change in the sponsorship legislation was done by regulation. I don't think the entire process has been adequately debated in Parliament.
The Chair: Before I go to Mr. Collacott, I want to make sure we understand that we're dealing with the guaranteed income-tested supplements and not the basic Old Age Security. I just want to make sure we fully understand the specific issue we are dealing with here.
Mr. Collacott: Would you like me to comment on that last point?
The Chair: No, I was just clarifying what it is we're dealing with and now I'm turning to you —
Mr. Collacott: I understand it deals with the Guaranteed Income Supplement specifically.
The Chair: Yes, that's correct, but do you have a comment on Senator Eggleton's question?
Mr. Collacott: Yes. Senator Eggleton, you were asking about the government figures. They're all contained in a paper that I published in November and I've sent it to the clerk of the committee in case you want to see the sources of all this information. That's certainly available.
I'll make another comment while I have the floor. There's no question that it's nice to have your parents and grandparents with you, but in fact, most Canadian families don't have their parents and grandparents with them to take care of their children, nor is it such a strong tradition in India any longer.
There was a survey done in 2011 that found 90 per cent of people in Delhi no longer had their parents and grandparents with them because housing was expensive, as it is in Canada. It's no longer a tradition that's that strong anymore, certainly in urban parts of India. I think that's a questionable argument to use, that this is the tradition back home and therefore we should continue it here.
Senator Eggleton: I was also asking about older immigrants who find themselves in a situation where their sponsors can no longer afford to sponsor them. They may have gone into bankruptcy. They may have died, lost their job, all sorts of reasons. There are also circumstances where these older people are being abused and want to get out of the circumstance they're in but are caught in it, and may be caught in it for 20 years under this legislation. What do you do about those people?
Mr. Collacott: Well, certainly the government has taken a number of steps in terms of regulations besides the extension of the GIS. They found that many people would sponsor their parents and found somehow or other they couldn't support them and that's why they would go on government assistance.
Now, under the new regulations, you have to prove over a period of three years, not just one year, you're going to have enough income. There are various other measures put in place to make sure people do have enough money to provide the necessary support.
The question of whether parents are abused is an issue that has to be dealt with like any other abusive parents or grandparents. I'm not sure what will be specific to immigrant parents and grandparents.
The Chair: For the last comment on this specific set of questions, Mr. Sachal.
Mr. Sachal: Referring to the senator's issue, there are many instances where in the Sikh temple and Hindu mandirs there are elders because the families who sponsor them went bankrupt, they are out of jobs and they have to come to feed themselves. At Sikh temples, the food is free for everyone. It is not only from the immigrant side. We also find people from the mainstream communities coming and having food. That's one example.
Second, this is not just a question of tradition in India or Pakistan or somewhere else. The question is of human connection. Whether it's in Canada, America or India, it is our human duty to look after our elders.
Senator Eaton: Thank you. This is obviously a very emotional problem. Ms. Eng, do you have any statistics as to how many sponsorships are maintained throughout the 10 years? What number, what percentage of sponsorships fall off?
Ms. Eng: We were not able to get those particular numbers. They are mostly anecdotal and there are many people who have brought these concerns to community agencies. Mostly the concern in the community agencies has been that they don't want to report on their family member who failed to sponsor them. The numbers are not captured in any official way.
Senator Eaton: Would it be easier, Mr. Collacott, if we didn't cap bringing parents and grandparents? I think it is good to build community and family, but we just did away with that; it was 10 years or 20 years. If you have not worked in this country or paid taxes in this country, if you are not a contributor, then you don't get any perks. Your family is responsible to you.
I think there are many Canadian families who do not bring in parents or grandparents, whose parents perhaps worked all their lives in Canada, who are helped by their children who fall in hard ways, are estranged, so it's a difficult subject.
What would happen if we just determined there was no GIS, you don't get anything? You're welcome to come to this country, but you're on your children's dime.
Mr. Collacott: That's a key point. I think the government, with strong public support according to the survey I mentioned earlier, simply is not saying people can't bring their parents and grandparents but they should not be heavily subsidized by the public.
One of the things the governments did, which I thought was rather clever — I didn't think of it myself — was to introduce a super visa where you can bring your family, your parents and grandparents over as visitors for up to 10 years, two years at a time. You simply provide health insurance and support them so that they're welcome here, but the Canadian public doesn't pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for each of them. It has been quite popular. There have been tens of thousands of those super visas issued and a high rate of approval, I think over 80 per cent. That's the basic solution. You've just outlined it. There are benefits that various witnesses have mentioned of having parents and grandparents with you, but who pays for it? Should we be paying for it?
Senator Eaton: That's for the families themselves.
Mr. Collacott: The Australians discovered 20 years ago they had a major problem with this, so they tightened up the system but parents and grandparents can still come. The sponsors still have to pay the visa fee, which is over $46,000 Australian — about the same amount Canadian for most of them — and there are restrictions and bonds they have to put up for medical costs and all sorts of things. We should be moving in that direction.
The sponsorship extension is only going to cover a small portion of the cost. It will still cost us close to $300,000 for each person coming in, including the 70,000 coming in during this three year period, costing us $21 billion. Surely something has got to be done about that.
Senator Enverga: Thank you for your presentations. From my experience, a lot of the grandparents who come here can't stay longer in Canada because of the cold weather. That's less of a cost. They would rather go back and just visit their grandkids.
For regular immigrants, how much would it cost them for a year? Will it be that difficult for a family to take care of their grandparents?
Ms. Eng: If I may, I think we need to understand two polar perspectives of this. The first is why do we have immigrants at all? Why do we welcome immigrants? We now value their contribution to our workforce and so on, and we value the strength and stability that family members bring. That is why we have the family class of immigration to begin with. We are starting to try to quantify that and make it into economic terms, i.e., undercutting what we originally proposed.
We are starting to start to take away dollars that were meant for the most extreme circumstances, even for Canadian-born citizens who are 65 and older and find themselves not having adequate income to get by. The GIS is available only to those whose income is around $15,000 or less. That's when you're eligible for GIS. This is recognition that there are people who cannot get by on other income, and this is a supplement that we propose to everybody.
On the question of why we decide when it is time to take it away from immigrant parents or grandparents despite the fact that they would share this same need and fall under the same circumstances is a new discussion. I would think that, as Senator Eggleton has suggested, it would be a clear case of discrimination based upon immigrant status. That is a clear concern for us. The amount of money is modest but very necessary. The maximum at this point is about $900. For a family in some financial stress and of course for seniors, this is a huge and very necessary part of the financial picture.
Senator Enverga: Can they apply for social welfare?
Ms. Eng: Welfare is also not available to them during the sponsorship period.
Senator Enverga: What if the sponsors can pay?
Mr. Sachal: A new immigrant who comes over here is getting a job for $10 or $12 per hour. The husband and wife are educated. Mostly educated people from the countries are coming, and when they land over here, they want the Canadian experience. Because they don't have the Canadian experience, they just get $10 or $12 per hour starting pay, which means about $1,500 to $1,600 per month. Generally the spouse does not work because there is a child to look after. Either the spouse is looking after the child or taking graveyard shifts to work.
With about $2,000 to $2,500 coming into the home, they have to rent a house, which is about $500 to $600; buy groceries for another $400 to $500; get a car; and pay for insurance and gas. They can hardly save even $100 per month. Further enforcing the burden of paying more, even if it's not 10 years, will make it very difficult for them to even sustain themselves. That is why, as you pointed out, many immigrants are going back. They come over here from countries where they had good jobs, but they wanted a land where they could use their knowledge and experience for the betterment of society. But once they feel frustrated about not being accommodated because they don't have the Canadian experience, many are keeping one person here, either the husband or the wife, and the other is going back. That creates friction in the community because the family unit as such is being divided; and that is a major crisis.
Senator Enverga: Don't take me wrong, because I am an immigrant.
Mr. Sachal: This is a fact.
Senator Enverga: It is a fact. Before we sponsor somebody, we always try to provide as much as we can, right? If people are able to survive helping for the 10 years, by the time your 10 years are here, you would have done better. Your life would be better. Will another 10 years really matter? By that time, you are established and have done all your work.
The Chair: I think you've answered that issue. It's important to make another clarification here to make sure we are all on the same page with regard to the changes that are occurring. These changes are not retroactive. They will come in and will apply to those who arrive here after the legislation is enacted. They are not in isolation. The government has been putting through a whole series of acts with regard to immigration and substantially changing the qualifications for immigration to partially meet some of the issues that you have been raising — to attempt to ensure that those selected have a far better chance of entering the workforce in Canada.
I am simply making certain that as we discuss these issues, we have it in context. It's not retroactive, and the new regulations will also come in at the same time as a number of other acts, including one we dealt with in this committee earlier in this discussion on the budget bill.
With that as a background, Ms. Eng, do you have a further specific point to make on this?
Ms. Eng: The key here in terms of all the things we are doing is that we all want to make sure that immigrants to the country have the best chance possible. Immigrants come here with great hopes and dreams to contribute their skills to the betterment of their family and the economy here. But things happen and it is not always the case. While many programs in place will improve their chances, those chances are not uniformly spread out among the population.
This program exists only to catch those that fail to meet their financial needs. It is not for everyone. Yes, it is funded out of taxes, but so are all of our social programs. They are part of the social fabric of this country.
The Chair: Senator, do you have one more question?
Senator Enverga: It has been answered. It's more like special cases only.
Ms. Eng: Only.
Senator Enverga: It's not really applied to everybody?
Ms. Eng: It is based on need.
Senator Enverga: Thank you.
The Chair: We are talking at cross purposes so let's not go further, okay?
Senator Meredith: Mr. Sachal, you spoke about immigrant families and the re-unification of families and wanting to see those family members, grandparents and parents come here to reside with their children and their grandchildren, and about the fact that the burden of this legislation that came into force in January 2014 extends that period from 10 to 20 years. Your opinion and that of Ms. Eng is that it should not have happened. What is the response within the community? What are they saying about this, given the fact that certain cultures want to see that happen and want to see the support of these parent and grandparents maintained? Elaborate for me on that.
Mr. Sachal: Basically, sir, in the communities we are hearing that it is discriminatory. It should not have happened because already 10 years are enough for a person to look after the parents they have sponsored. Increasing it to 20 years is being taken in a negative way in the communities. In immigrant communities, there is much talk about this that it should not have happened, specifically what you have pointed out.
Ms. Eng: We also had an occasion to poll members on this issue as to whether the term of GIS ineligibility should be extended from 10 to 20 years. The vast majority thought it should stay at 10 years. Some felt it should be a shorter time, but the vast majority thought it should stay at 10 years because it's the proper balance. There is recognition that families who bring in family members who are not expected to work should have the responsibility in the first instance to look after their financial needs and all of their health care needs. That is a fair balance.
There should be a period of time when they cannot get income supports; but they felt that 10 years was the right balance. To extend it would be a hardship. As I mentioned, the age expectancy of immigrants from countries with lesser health care systems will not be much longer than Canadians. If our life expectancy is about 83 years, we are basically imposing on them a situation where they will never be eligible. If that is the purpose of this bill, then we should just say so.
Senator Meredith: You said that the only way to get out of this program for the child who sponsors the parents, is for that child to die. What happens to the senior?
Ms. Eng: Well, the exceptions for the sponsorship obligation are: a person dies, goes bankrupt or is in jail for six months, I believe, or is otherwise incapacitated. Specific exemptions would apply.
Senator Meredith: And they are able to apply for social assistance?
Ms. Eng: They would be at that time, and if it's 10 years already, then they would be able to apply for GIS. But those are extreme circumstances and they don't include the situation where the family becomes financially incapable, or if there is a social estrangement.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Ms. Eng, regarding your last comment about ``if this is the intention of the policy, let's state it,'' do you know what the purpose of this change in the act is? Do any of you?
Ms. Eng: No, and first of all, the extension of the sponsorship period was done by regulation. This particular change was never mentioned in the Throne Speech or in the budget. Now it is added to the budget bill without — to my knowledge — any full parliamentary debate as to the purpose of both the extension of the sponsorship period and the extension of the ineligibility period for GIS.
So I don't actually know why this provision exists. We just believe that it's unfair.
The Chair: Perhaps, senator, I can add a clarification.
The act is being brought into harmony with the time for sponsorship, which was changed from 10 to 20 years under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, as it says in the division itself. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations extended the sponsorship period from 10 to 20 years, and there is a clear definition of what the responsibilities are during that period. So this is bringing the language of this —
Senator Nancy Ruth: Thank you, chair, but if I may —
The Chair: I just wanted to answer the part about where this is coming from.
Senator Nancy Ruth: My understanding — and neither of you are going to like what I am going to say — is that housing — we are from Ontario. Ontario housing is full of seniors who have passed their 10-year period, and it is very difficult for other people to get into Ontario housing. This is seen as a problem, not only in our province but in other provinces across Canada.
If that statement is true, how do you two respond? I believe this is part of the reason it has been extended to 20 years, besides bringing regulations into conformity.
Ms. Eng: As I mentioned earlier, immigration work is not part of our mandate, so I'm not sure that information is true. Do you mean by that that after the 10-year sponsorship period, people just leave the home and try to strike out on their own and apply for social housing, thereby making other people ineligible — taking up spaces?
Senator Nancy Ruth: That might be one reason; there may be others.
Ms. Eng: In such circumstances, they would absolutely need any GIS support that they could have.
Senator Nancy Ruth: Yes, and they have it now.
Ms. Eng: They wouldn't be moving out of the family home except under extraordinary circumstances. Maybe Mr. Sachal could talk to this.
Mr. Sachal: Yes, I can talk about British Columbia and especially the Lower Mainland area, the Vancouver and the Surrey area. There are hardly any parents who have moved out of their families' homes — what you are pointing out is in the old age homes. I do not know about Ontario, but over there, we find this.
They have been sponsored, and it's not an obligation but more of a duty in that children think parents are their parents and they need to be looked after.
Senator Enverga: It is cultural.
The Chair: Senator Eggleton with the final question.
Senator Eggleton: We should have had the department here, because these regulations have not been before this committee; we are being asked to agree to something that comes out of the budget bill that is relevant to regulations that have not been before this committee, and I would be certainly interested in knowing more about them.
I hope we are not getting into balance-sheet immigration here. I hope we understand that we are a society that has been built on immigration, and that's more than just the money aspects of both what they bring and what they may cost us.
I'm particularly concerned about those who find themselves, whether in the 10-year or the 20-year period — the 20- year period is obviously a bigger chance — that there is going to be some problem happening, that somebody's going to fall upon hard times, and that these seniors are going to find themselves in poverty, in a homeless shelter or on the street. There has to be some mechanism to deal with that.
I understood that part of the OAS regulations, if there is a death of a sponsor, they are convicted of a criminal offence, suffer bankruptcy, et cetera, that there is this provision to deal with people in those circumstances. But I don't know what the mechanism is, and I don't know how easy it is to access. A lot of these older people do not necessarily have the best command of English, if at all. They certainly do not understand the system. I need to know there is something in place where some appeal can be made so they can get out from under this problem they would find themselves in.
There are also the ones who are being abused. We need to know that. It may not be that most people are in that circumstance, but there are going to be some people in that circumstance. Going from 10 to 20 years, we are going to have more.
So I would like to know if you have any further comments about that process. I want to know more about those mechanisms, if they are there, or if we need to recommend that they be there.
I would also like to know — you only get the GIS if you're qualified for the OAS. There is, however, something else that helps you to qualify for the OAS in a shorter period than 10 years, and that's an international social security agreement. Canada has these agreements with different countries — not all countries — that will actually trigger somebody getting an OAS payment sooner than 10 years. If you're from one country, you may not get it, but if you're from another country, you may get it, which does not sound terribly fair or equitable. Perhaps you could further comment on that.
The Chair: Mr. Collacott's been trying to come in, but I will have you answer specifically, Ms. Eng. You mentioned and confirmed the eligibility for the supplement under certain exceptional circumstances, such as bankruptcy, et cetera. Senator Eggleton asked specifically the ability to access that when a parent or grandparent finds themselves in a situation where their sponsor has gone bankrupt.
Ms. Eng: There are specific provisions in the act now that allow a sponsor to be relieved of the sponsorship agreement and obligation if they fit into categories like bankruptcy, death and jail time such that they are unable to provide the support. That's a circumstance in which the person is unable to provide support and is released from those obligations.
If they don't qualify there, then the question of what the senior does who finds that the family can't afford it but is not bankrupt or there is estrangement. In fact, there is no easy route to get the family disentangled from that situation. Making it 20 years will make that worse.
The separate issue you mentioned, senator, of there being different treaties for people from different countries does create inequity and some unhappiness with some countries where the years of residence in the other country are also recognized in Canada, with the result that, once they come to Canada, the waiting period is shorter. However, to the extent that those people are sponsored — if they come in as an independent immigrant, then of course they will qualify for the shorter period of waiting before they qualify for OAS and GIS, but if they are sponsored, then the sponsorship period extends the amount of time they must wait to the sponsorship period just the same.
Mr. Collacott: There are a few things. People have argued that by imposing these more stringent requirements on the sponsorship of parents and grandparents, this is discriminatory. Well, immigration is not based on charity. We have a refugee program based on humanitarian grounds, but immigration is based on economic benefit to Canada, to a large extent.
If it's quite clear that it's costing us far more than it should be, that's a legitimate question to ask. We discriminate, for instance, by raising the work requirements for immigrants rather than simply taking anyone who wants to come here. If you want to call that discrimination, so be it. But by saying that if a particular group is costing us far more than they should, that's discriminatory, so be it.
On the question of international agreements, we do have a shortened period for immigrants, sponsored parents, grandparents from countries that we have an agreement with, and they are mostly Western countries. The reason is that the families pay into this kind of system back there, so it's reciprocal.
Canadians can go there and get the benefit of their system. If they come from countries where people don't make a contribution to retirement programs, Canadians wouldn't benefit if they go to that country. If Canadians, for instance, went to China or India, they would get no benefits.
About five years ago when Ruby Dhalla, who was a Liberal MP from Ontario, proposed shortening the period from 10 to 3 years to get OAS, even her own party realized that this was not a good idea. A former Liberal Minister of Immigration said this will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, and that bill never got past first reading. So there is recognition among more than one party that this can be a very expensive proposition.
The basic issue here is, no, we don't want to keep out parents and grandparents, but let's shift some of the responsibility from the taxpayer to the people who are going to benefit from it. Let's not have the taxpayer pay almost a third of a million dollars for each of these individuals. As I said, $21 billion is estimated for just the ones coming in this year, last year and the year before.
The Chair: Thank you, and thanks to the witnesses.
I think this clearly shows that all the questions around immigration have multiple points of view, and indeed some very different views with regard to programs, the objectives and benefits of the programs, the requirements that should be in place and so on.
We have seen that reflected here today in terms of those different views on the humanitarian versus other aspects of these issues. What we are dealing with in this particular division of the bill is not the totality of all of these important issues, but rather the fact that one act is being harmonized with another existing act with regard to a definition of the length of time for the sponsorship, regardless of one's view of the length of time that is appropriate for sponsorship. It is the harmonization of the issues around the sponsorship period of time, which had been extended from 10 to 20 years under the Immigration Act.
So we certainly have had input on the issues that you feel relate to this and the impacts on those who will come in and are subject to these definitions. We appreciate that very much, and I am going to remind my colleagues we are going immediately in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)