Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you.

Mr. Busby is a senior policy analyst with the C.D. Howe Institute. Good afternoon.

[Colin Busby, Senior Policy Analyst, C.D. Howe Institute]

Good afternoon, and thanks.

Thankfully, Mr. Noorani and I share a lot of opinions.

On a per capita basis, Canada runs one of the largest immigration systems among the world's advanced economies. The annual inflow of immigrants to Canada, which is about 260,000, is roughly equivalent to 0.8% of the total population. This compares to the annual immigrant inflow of roughly 0.9% of Australia's population, 0.6% of the population of the U.K., and 0.4% of the population of the U.S., for their immigration programs.

Because Canada's immigration system is so large relative to others, it's also more complex to manage. The recent global recession, coupled with Canada's relatively strong labour market performance relative to other advanced nations, is an opportunity for Canada to attract some of the world's best and brightest talent.

Canada looks relatively good on the world stage. While the backlog of applications is surely dampening the attractiveness of Canada as a potential location, our relatively strong labour market is currently helping to offset some of the negative effects of the backlog and likely increasing the average skill sets of new applicants. Should the labour markets in other countries improve, the negative aspects of the backlog on the quality of potential applicants is sure to become more acute.

Quite simply, one could characterize two major problems facing Canada's immigration system, one of which is the backlog of applications. The average processing time for applications in Canada is still higher than the average six-month processing time in Australia. Many applicants are likely to give up on the likelihood of getting into Canada and are looking elsewhere.

Another major problem is that recently landed immigrants have not fared as well as their Canadian-born counterparts in the job market. They are not closing the gap over time as quickly as they were historically. This is manifested in part by the worsening earnings gap between immigrants and the Canadian-born population. Many new arrivals are underemployed and they are moving back home or to another country.

To reduce the backlog, policy-makers have three main options: one, increase admissions; two, limit applications; and three, limit the number of successful applications. One popular solution to the backlog, which is to increase overall immigration levels, risks exacerbating the labour market gaps between newly arrived immigrants and the Canadian-born population.

New academic work by the C.D. Howe Institute that evaluates the labour market outcomes of newly arrived immigrants according to historical data that tracks all immigrants who arrive in Canada bears out this point. For instance, increasing the annual immigration rate to 1% of the population, so that's expanding the number of immigrants by roughly 85,000 people per year, would reduce the average entry earnings of all applicants by about 3%. That amounts to roughly $1,300 per year for males and $900 for females. This happens because marginal applicants with lower education and language skills are more likely to enter as total immigration numbers increase.

Another solution for reducing the backlog of family class applicants would be to decrease the economic class share of immigrants under the capped level of total migrants. This could mean, for instance, reducing the economic class share from roughly 60% of total immigrants to roughly 50%. However, this would imply a reduction in average entry level earnings of approximately 7.5% for males and females, roughly $3,400 per year.

Australia currently allocates about 70% of all immigrants to the economic class whereas Canada's share is much lower, somewhere between 55% to 60% on average over the last five or six years.

Now, immigration policy decisions should not be based totally on economic criteria such as high entry-level earnings. Family reunification, for example, has intrinsic value to many recently landed and potential immigrants. That said, economic consequences matter, especially to the extent that they contribute to beneficial consequences of immigration from the perspective of immigrants themselves and society at large.

Based on these findings, I'm not convinced that increasing the total level of immigrants or changing the share of immigrants coming through certain classes offer any easy solutions to the backlog program. Doing so while helping to reduce the number of people in the backlog would come at the cost of exacerbating the already problematic gaps in labour market outcomes of newly arrived immigrants vis-a-vis the Canadian born.

Better solutions to the problem, which may also have some benefits with respect to greater earnings potential, are likely in the way applicants are screened prior to landing. Take language assessment, for example. Recent reforms and announcements to move to third-party language testing should be applauded as a measure to better screen potential applicants. That should result in a lower success rate for potential applicants. Greater weight in the point system could be taken away from work experience, for example, and put toward younger applicants. This would imply adopting a point structure that places a greater emphasis on younger immigrants, giving greater weight to those in younger age categories, like in Quebec and Australia.

While none of these suggested changes to the federal screening for skilled immigrants will necessarily help the backlog of immigrants from prior to 2008, as the backlog keeps coming down we can loosen the existing filter--sort of pre-filter--on applications according to occupational need, and instead have a bolstered point system do the heavy work.

Taking a wider view of immigration policy reforms in recent years, it's fair to say that reforms have been made in response to the extended waiting period for potential applications; labour-market shortages in specific regions; earning differentials between immigrants and the Canadian-born; and the inability of the federal skilled worker program to take into account blue-collar trade skills, as opposed to general white-collar attributes and skills.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Mr. Busby, perhaps you could wind up, please.

[Colin Busby]

Sure.

My final point is that the point system itself could be realigned to help some of these problems. It would be a more transparent and reliable screen than bureaucratically determined occupational need, or provincial nominee fast-tracking.

I'll conclude with that point.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much, Mr. Busby.

Ms. Zerehi, you have up to eight minutes to make a presentation. Thank you for coming this afternoon.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi, Communications Coordinator, Immigration Network]

Thank you for having me.

I'm here on behalf of the Immigration Network, a group advocating for fast, fair, and effective immigration practices. Our group includes various national, regional, and local immigrant refugee organizations; community groups; as well as academic and legal professionals.

Our communities are heartened to see that steps are being taken to address the important issue of the immigration backlog. The problem has plagued Canada's immigration system for too long.

As someone who has first-hand experience in family separation due to immigration reasons, I wholeheartedly sympathize with families who are waiting for over seven years--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Excuse me. We're having trouble. You have to slow down so our translator can hear you.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

I will slow down. I apologize. I was watching my eight minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I know. I'm asking you to do two things.

Thank you very much.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

Okay, I will slow down. I apologize.

As someone who's experienced first-hand family separation due to immigration reasons, I wholeheartedly sympathize with families who are waiting for over seven years to have their application processed in order to be reunified with their loved ones. We know there are many arguments towards family reunification. Parents and grandparents contribute to our well-being as a community and nation. With more adults working, the household income could be enhanced. Family reunification gives a boost to economic consumption as larger families inevitably consume more goods and services. Our recommendation towards this end is to reduce waiting times for parents and grandparents and consider a pilot project to pre-approve applications that include the extended family.

I would like to commence by expressing our support for the recent announcement regarding the increase in the number of sponsored parents and grandparents that Canada will admit next year. We see this as a real step towards positive change. The target numbers for parents and grandparents have steadily fallen from 20,000 in 2006 to 15,000 in 2010. Increasing the targets to 25,000 in 2012 will make a decided impact on the number of families who will finally be reunited.

While measures have been taken to increase the number of sponsored parents and grandparents, more can be done for immigrants in other categories. It's no secret that Canada's population increase will soon be driven by net immigration. We need to ensure that we're replacing our aging workforce, as well as meeting our vision in terms of expanding our resources and knowledge sectors. Currently, we receive an average of 250,000 immigrants every year: 232,868 in 2007; 271,028 in 2008; 258,853 in 2009; and 244,401 in 2010. These applications were processed under the existing system. Looking at these numbers, it becomes clear that we cannot reduce the backlog unless we increase the annual immigration target range. Our recommendation, unlike the speakers who came before us, is to increase the annual immigration target range from the present 240,000 to 265,000 to 320,000 to 340,000, which is around 1% of the Canadian population, to address the backlog.

Unfortunately, the good news in the recent announcement about increasing the target number of sponsored parents and grandparents was accompanied by troubling measures that will surely negatively impact Canadian families. The recent proposal from the federal government included a stipulation to put in place a pause of up to 24 months on the acceptance of new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents effective November 5, 2011. We feel that preventing families from submitting applications is inhumane. Every family should be provided a chance to submit an application for reunification. We believe that the solution for eliminating the 165,000-strong backlog of parent and grandparent applications is to hire more people to review the applications and not simply refuse to look at applications.

I can't imagine what it would feel like to be told that my family would not be even extended the opportunity to submit an application regardless of the merits of our case. Our recommendation is to eliminate the temporary pause of up to 24 months on the acceptance of new sponsorship applications for parents and grandparents. Our second recommendation in this regard is to gear the budget allocation to Citizenship and Immigration Canada towards strengthening the capacity within the department to effectively eliminate the backlog in processing family reunifications requests and permanent residence applications.

The federal government also recently announced the new parent and grandparent super visa, which will be valid for up to 10 years. The multiple-entry visa is designed to allow an applicant to remain in Canada for up to 24 months at a time without the need for renewal of their status. The visa, which comes into effect on December 1, 2011, promises to be issued within eight weeks of application. Applicants will be required to obtain private Canadian healthcare insurance for their stay in Canada.

While on the surface this measure seems to be a move towards eliminating our immigration backlog, upon closer examination it becomes clear that this is a temporary solution at best, which can only work as a band-aid, rather than a cure for our ailments. Multiple-entry visas have already been part of our system. In fact, we have had the five-year multiple-entry visa in place for a number of years, and it has yet to make an impact on our immigration backlog.

In reality, families accessing visitor visas have been subjected to extremely high rejection rates. A visitor visa is ultimately an inadequate substitute for permanent residency status particularly if it's not accompanied by a mechanism that will allow applicants to land as permanent immigrants after a number of years of residency in Canada.

Ultimately, much more work needs to be done in fine-tuning the parent and grandparent super visa before it can be posited as a real solution. We welcome the opportunity to work with the government on addressing the shortcomings of this initiative in the near future in order to meet the needs of all stakeholders. Our recommendation in this regard is to review the parent and grandparent super visa in order to build the mechanisms for permanent residency after a number of years of residency in Canada.

We also believe that we should look at how we can utilize existing programs to meet the needs of Canadian families. One such measure would be to expand the Canadian economic class to allow long-term residents and temporary workers to land. For years we have expressed our concern about the policy shift of the Ministry of Immigration whereby immigrants are increasingly being understood and treated as cheap and exploitable labour to be brought here through temporary visas.

This government has brought in numerous changes to allow more flexibility to visa offices to bring in skilled workers to meet labour needs. Employers claim labour shortages of both high-skilled and low-skilled workers, with much of this perceived labour shortage occurring in the lower-skilled sectors.

Under the existing point system, low-skilled workers will never have enough points to stay in Canada as permanent residents and never qualify as citizens or be able to bring their families to Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Perhaps you can wind up, please.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

Yes.

We have heard numerous testimonies from employees who are concerned that these temporary workers programs are ineffectual, as workers are in the country for only a few years before being forced to leave after finally being trained and settled in their new jobs. Clearly, employers want their workers to be in Canada on a permanent and stable basis. This is common business sense.

Finally, these applicants already reside in Canada and have ties to our business and communities. In addition, they have already been subjected to criminal and health checks. We recommend expanding the Canadian economic class to allow long-term residents and temporary workers to land. We also recommend that the government reform its requirements under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and bring workers to Canada permanently, rather than rushing in these potential immigrants as temporary cheap labourers.

I have one more quick point, but I'll just conclude because of the time shortage. The point is around non-status immigrants, if you would like to ask me any questions about that.

To conclude, we hope that through open and transparent debate and dialogue, we can finally find a means to eliminate the immigration backlog and transform our broken system into one that meets the needs of all Canadians.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

We welcome the opportunity--

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

I'm sorry. I'm the guardian of the clock, and I have to stop you.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

No worries.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Thank you very much for your presentation.

[Sima Sahar Zerehi]

You have to do what you have to do.

[The Chair, Conservative, David Tilson]

Indeed.

Mr. Menegakis has up to seven minutes.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Good afternoon, everyone, and thank you so much for joining us today. Thank you so much for your insightful presentations. I listened very carefully.

I'd like to direct my first question to Mr. Noorani.

Your recommendations on how to reduce the backlog focused primarily on economic immigrants. As you are aware, many parents and grandparents are waiting up to seven or eight years to come to Canada. Do you think you can apply the same methods you recommended to the parents and grandparents? I'd like to hear what your view would be on that and on the things you think we can implement to help reduce that backlog.

[Naeem (Nick) Noorani]

Thank you, Mr. Menegakis. I hope I'm pronouncing it right.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Yes, it's fine. No problem. Thank you.

[Naeem (Nick) Noorani]

This problem has been on my conscience for a while. My mother passed away last year. She was one of the people who wanted to come to Canada and she couldn't, because it was going to take years. So there is a personal story here.

But I think what has happened is.... I'm going to take Minister Kenney's analogy of the plane and the number of seats. The fact is we are selling more seats than we have. What's happening is that the people who are coming to the airport are not the 100 who can get on the plane but the 800 who have applied. So the airport is going to have what we have: a logjam.

I think Minister Kenney's recommendation is to be lauded: number one, to increase the numbers so that we can start tearing down the backlog. Number two, I think the super visa is frankly a silver bullet. I have spoken to a lot of immigrants. A lot of parents don't want to come to Canada, because they have their own networks back home. My mother-in-law lives with us. Her whole day is spent watching TV. That's a terrible life. She doesn't speak to anyone except when she goes to church.

I think this would allow parents to come and go, back and forth. The only reason many of them actually apply for the family-class visa is that there's a problem getting visitor visas. I believe that the super visa will alleviate a lot of problems. Will it solve the problem in its entirety? I don't think so. But I think there is going to be a Canada-wide discussion, which is important in the spirit of democracy, so I actually support this.

Thank you.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Busby, do you care to comment on that?

[Colin Busby]

Well, it's a very challenging question. And the point I was trying to make was I don't think there is any easy quick fix for us to do this in a reasonably short timeframe and in a way that will not affect, in one way, shape, or form, the already growing problem we have, not just with the backlog--as I said, that is one problem with the immigration system--but with the growing gap between earnings results for newly arrived immigrants and the Canadian-born. You simply can't do one by increasing the numbers too much or expanding the level of total immigrants without significantly hurting the other.

What I am thinking is that while they have put the recent cap on the number of potential applications, that seems to me like some sort of forward progress, in the sense that you can't really start to get rid of the backlog, and you can't even start to allocate a marginally larger share of the total immigrants toward family class unless you start to put in place some type of system like that.

As painful as I think it is going to be, I only see progress taking place on this front in very small increments. And if you want to make those large increments, if you want to expand the numbers to significant levels like I was proposing, then you have to be prepared that there will be other consequences as well to those policies. I have to keep pointing the finger back at the point that we are seeing extraordinarily large growth in the divergence of earnings results for immigrants and the Canadian-born population, and that's not a problem we want to see grow.