X University
There has been a long standing debate in Canada about the need to bring about changes to immigration policy. The discussion hovers around the kind of immigrants to focus and their overall impact on the economy. Also, how to evenly spread the benefits of immigration across the country. After extensive review of Collacot (2003), “Canada’s Immigration Policy: The Need for Major Reform”, I am of the opinion that skilled immigrants should be given preference over other categories. Also, incentives should be created such that they chose to settle evenly across the country, and ghettoes be avoided at all costs.
The main premise behind any economic policy is the economic benefits to the country concerned. Discussing the very need for immigration, the article giving reference to research states that while overall GDP of Canada might increase, the per capital GDP remains stagnant or even falls. I am of the opinion that if skilled immigrants are given preference and their skill are recognized, it is less likely to happen. The report, giving reference of MacDonald report goes on to state that only skilled immigrants benefit and the host do not. I would argue that in an open economy, the increase purchasing power of the immigrants does contribute towards that of the host. The real estate and the housing sector would be case in example. It quotes a report from US in stating that increased labour force transferred substantial amount of money from the hands of employee to employer. It may sound counterproductive but, it puts more money in the hands of investors and employers, thereby stimulating the economy. According to (DeVoretz, 1996), Canadian industries are losing jobs or suffering wage suppression due to immigration. In one of non-Canadian studies (Economist, 2002), a 10% rise in immigration resulted in 4% decrease in wages of earlier immigrants. It is being contested that the resulting wage suppression might cause migration south of the border. I believe that it is a natural consequence and quite acceptable from worker’s standpoint. After all, a balance has to happen at some point. Also, if US economy is doing better than Canadian, then migration will happen no matter what. In fact skilled immigrant will come in valuable in such circumstances.
The article quotes are report from Conference Board of Canada projecting a shortfall of 1 million workers by 2020. The findings of the report are quite questionable as it is not clear whether the shortfall is to be met by immigration alone or upgrading the skills of existing population. In contrast, Canadian Council on Social Development and the Columbia Foundation argue that there is current surplus of untrained youth. Therefore, there is a need to strike a balance between educating current unemployed population and seeking skilled immigrants. I believe as the amount of funding available for upgrading universities will be a limiting factor; it would be wise to increase educational opportunities as much as possible. The remaining shortfall can be filled by skilled immigrants. Also, we should not forget that immigrants too would want to take advantage of Canadian educational opportunities. This approach will help find a healthy equilibrium and be a win-win situation for all. It is being argued that as a result of immigration, employers are spending less on training the current population. I would argue that the employers can train only so much as most of it is done in universities. Moreover, hiring immigrants helps them free up resources for other activities.
Another related issue is the ageing of the current population. There is need for sufficient younger population to increase or maintain national productivity in order to sustain or support older generation. And immigration fits in perfectly to fit the job. As far as age group of immigrants is concerned, there is some merit in having them young. That will allow Canada to have sufficient amount of working population to support an increasing number of retired persons, which is what we call “dependency ratio”. However, it is projected (Statistics Canada, 1997) that without any net immigration and at current fertility rate, the population will continue to grow, and will being to fall only in late 2020s. At the same time, the study by Health and Welfare Canada project that increased immigration will have little or no effect on either the aging of the population or the dependency ratio. Though, Stats Canada concluded from its census data that immigration cannot solve the problem of worsening of dependency ratio. Either way, it highlights that immigration will not have any adverse effect on demographics, even if it does not fully solve the problem.
It is hotly contested issues whether it would be better if more immigrants went to areas where the population is declining rather than to large cities. I would agree with proponent of immigrants going to underserved areas. But at the same time, I would encourage the government to create incentives such that they benefit in going to underserved areas. Such incentives should be created by working closely with the employers, professional bodies and industry in general. This will also solve the problem of pollution, overcrowding, traffic congestion, and pressure from health and education system. If this happens, then their purchasing power is bound to benefit the existing population and facilitate harmonious coexistence. It is easier said than done, as it is hard to create incentives or infrastructure before skilled workforce reaches there, and vice versa. Only gradual and concerted efforts will make it happen, even though government’s approach is reverse of what it should be. I believe that in a democratic society, it is very difficult for government where people choose to settle. On top of that you first need a critical mass of skilled population before infrastructural projects can be successful. But, with so many skilled immigrants already available, the chances of their not migrating to such areas are minimal.
The report quotes the Economic Council of Canada (Economic Council 1991a), and suggests that there have been a significant downturn in economic status of the recent immigrants. The reason citied is that as most of the immigrants are family class, they are not expected to be productive. And those who are skilled and productive are facing problems in job market. It is time to set the priorities right and promote immigrants with right skills, facilitate their accreditation and help in settlement.
Also pertinent to the discussion is the cost of immigration program to taxpayers. The report quotes John Manion (Manion 2001), a former Deputy Minister that direct annual cost of immigration and refugee programs are in tune of $2-4 billion. I believe that these costs will be there as Canada does need immigration. And, if skilled immigrants are promoted over family class, the return would be higher in proportion to expense.
Next, I would like to come to the important aspect of challenges faced by those with higher qualifications. The report quotes analysis by Reitz’s University of Toronto study that economic prospects of new immigrants have been negatively affected because their educational credentials are not given same weightage by Canadian employers. The study also noted that this is unlikely to change as it is part and parcel of basic institutional structure of Canadian society.
On this issue, I will strongly advocate taking a cue from US immigration policy and allow temporary skilled workers. They can leave upon the expiry, or if employed, can go on to gain immigrant status. As the demand for various job categories is less than perfect, these skilled workers will fill in demand that hasn’t been identified. The main aim is that foreign skilled workers are happily employed and enjoying Canadian life. And if they are unable to continue on with their employment, then they rather return respectfully. Unfortunately, as the report says that policy makers are more concerned with increasing the number of immigrants, so are immigration lawyers. In all this, the message is being lost that skilled immigrants are disappointed with what they experience and the Canadian taxpayers are not achieving the strategic outcomes of the immigration policy.
In all this is a contentious issue of giving priority to family class immigrants. I tend to agree in principle that high priority should be given to immediate family members. However, it has a negative impact that does not benefit Canada economically. Those sponsored under family category don’t have the skills in line with Canada’s requirement, nor are zealous enough to work. Also, it is this category of immigrants that are more likely to incur welfare cost to Canadian tax payers. The article gives brief history of Canadian immigration policy to highlight the fact that during initial phases, the emphasis was on skilled workforce. As a result, the overall economic performance of immigrants was quite good. It states that things started to change once more emphasis getting paid to family class immigrants. Such immigrants are ill prepared to participate in Canadian labour market, and they’ll require expense from taxpayers to train them. Also, the extended family is not necessarily in baby boomer category.
As a result, I will agree with the report when it recommends that CIC should move the skilled worker category to second place in the priority list, or even to the first. And it should redefine the family class to avoid any misuse. They should redefine the family class to avoid any misuse. They should also avoid diluting the definition of skilled worker by including their dependents in the list. The category of Skilled Worker – Principle Applicants should be clearly identified as it is only these who are judged based on the criteria. They should not be confused with the family member or those considered as “economic” immigrants.
Further, a study done by Department of Citizenship and Immigration in 1998 confirmed that immigrants in family category have low employment earnings, higher rates of unemployment benefits and social assistance usage, and low percentage of tax filers reporting employment earnings.
A severe cause of concern among policy makers is the role of sponsored parents in bringing the extended family members. In every likelihood, these parents would have been sponsored by skilled immigrants. This has domino effect where one skilled immigrant is able to bring multiple members under skilled category. Therefore, the economic benefits due to skilled immigrants are easily negated by expense incurred in training and welfare of extended family.
However, those wanting to sponsor their parents do have a point, if there are old and need support. Immigration activist contest that too much attention is now given to qualification, and so long as applicants have clean record and are law-abiding, should be allowed entry. Those who contest this claim state that that was the requirement when we needed large population to settle in sparsely populated areas. However, times have changed and we now need those who can positively contribute to the economy. On top of that, those with skills, who are unable to find jobs commensurate with their qualifications, return back to their country. Those without, will be less inclined to return, and stay to avail welfare benefits. Therefore, path should be made easy for skilled immigrants, else they’ll return and there will be no net benefit, or maybe even negative.
Therefore, I would conclude by saying that Canada needs to continue with its immigration policy, as it is beneficial from every angle. Also, it needs to set its priorities right by giving preference to skilled workforce. Immigration based on family ties is important to reunite them, but those sponsored under family category shouldn’t be allowed to sponsor anyone. The rest of their family can apply as independent skill personnel. Also, serious consideration should be given to allowing temporary work authorization. If they are employed for a certain period, they immigration should be facilitated. Lastly, immigrants of all categories should be encouraged to settle across Canada. Programs and policies should be framed such that this is facilitated.
References
Economic Council of Canada (1991a). Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration. Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
Economic Council of Canada (1991b). New faces in the crowd: Economic and Social Impacts of Immigration. Minister of Supply and Services Canada.
The Economist (2002). “Who Gains from Immigration?” (June 29): 54.
Reitz, Jeffrey G. (2000). Immigrant Success in the Knowledge Economy. University of Toronto.
Report of the Auditor General of Canada 1982. “Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission, Immigration
Program.” Available on the Internet at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca.
Report of the Auditor General of Canada 2000. “Chapter 3:Citizenship and Immigration Canada: The Economic Component of the Canadian Immigration Program.” Available on the Internet at www.oag-bvg.gc.ca
Manion, John (2001). Testimony before the Senate Standing Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, October 3.
Statistics Canada (1997). Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada. Cat. No. 91-209-XPE. - (2001). Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and Territories 2000-2026. Cat. No. 91-520.
Statistics Canada (1997). Report on the Demographic Situation in Canada. Cat. No. 91-209-XPE. - (2002). Profile of the Canadian Population by Age and Sex: Canada Ages, 2001 Census (2001 Census Analysis Series) Cat. no. 96F0030XIE2001002. Available on the Internet at http://www.statcan.ca/english/IPS/Data/96F0030XIE2001002.htm.
DeVoretz, Don (1996).“HowCentral Canadian Labour Difficulties Drive the Immigration Debate.” Vancouver
Sun, May 31.
Canadian Labour and Business Council (2002). Viewpoints2002: The Perspective of Business Labour and
Public Sector Leaders—Skills and Skill Shortages.(Spring). Available on the Internet at http://www.clbc.ca
Government of Canada (2002). Canada Gazette Part II:Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations. Extra
Vol. 136, no. 9 (June 14). Available on the Internet at http://canada.gc.ca/gazette/part2/pdf/g2-136x9.pdf
