Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Oct. 30th, 2018

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Oliphant (Don Valley West, Lib.)), Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I'm going to call this meeting to order.

This is the 129th meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, where we continue to study migration challenges and opportunities for Canada in the 21st century. It's quite a broad study. We are attempting to add some insights for Parliament's thinking in a general way on this broad topic.

Thank you, Mr. Boldt and Professor Bélanger, for joining us today.

We're going to begin with Professor Bélanger.

Ms. Bélanger, you have the floor for seven minutes.

[Professor Danièle Bélanger, Full Professor, Department of Geography, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Merci. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

It's really an honour to share my perspectives as a researcher on the issue of temporary migrants who work in Canada, many of whom may become permanent residents.

I'm a full professor at Université Laval in Quebec City, and I'm the holder of the senior Canada research chair in global migration processes.

The issue of migrant workers with temporary resident status is a very important one to examine because it holds strong impact for immigration, the labour force and the economy. On this topic I have conducted first-hand field research with temporary workers in agriculture, the IT sector, hospitality and administration in Ontario and Quebec since 2010. This involved more than 100 interviews with workers from different source countries and very extensive time spent in the field with temporary workers. I'm interested in the impact of policy on workers and in restituting their perspectives and experiences.

Let me mention first that some of my points reiterate the recommendations already published in the report on the temporary foreign worker program of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. This committee was chaired by Brian May in 2016.

Let me first draw your attention to the increasing proportion and number of temporary residents in Canada over the past few decades. A large proportion of these temporary residents are work permit holders. They include foreign students and asylum seekers, as well as temporary workers, of course. I mention this because most studies, as well as the work of the previous standing committee, specifically focused on those who come under the temporary foreign worker program. Rarely do we have studies considering the impact of the presence of workers with temporary status, including all entry categories.

The increase is significant both in absolute and relative terms. I'll just bring one number to you. According to the 2016 census, the population of Canada increased by 10% between 2001 and 2016, but the proportion of the temporary residents increased by 155%. That's very important. Despite short-term fluctuations in temporary foreign worker admissions, which civil servants will certainly share with you, we need to keep an eye on the overall trend and the big picture of the situation.

Why should we care about the increase in temporary residents in Canada? Why does it matter? I will stress four reasons today.

First of all, temporary residents who work have fewer social rights than permanent residents. Not all of them have access to health care services, for instance, yet they pay income taxes.

Second, temporary residents who do not have the right to work—some of them don't—are likely to engage in unreported work to support themselves.

Third, temporary residents who do not renew their visa are likely to stay in Canada and increase Canada's undocumented migrant population.

Fourth, and very important, temporary residents in the labour market may have an impact on working conditions of all workers because they are often dependent on their employers for their right to stay, their right to return to Canada, as in the case of workers in agriculture, or the ability to become permanent residents. For these reasons, they are often willing to work under different conditions, such as lower wages or longer hours. This creates inequalities among workers and tensions in the workplace, and I've seen many instances in my field work.

My slide 5 shows you how it may have an impact. It shows you the median weekly income for temporary residents in the workforce relative to permanent immigrants. What we see from these analyses—we have a full paper with extensive analyses—is that temporary workers earn less than other immigrants. We found also that temporary workers work more hours on average per week than other immigrants. All other things being equal, resident status matters for income, and temporary residents may be disadvantaged, and it may have an impact on the workplace overall.

My first point was about the increase in temporary residents in the workforce and the impact on wages. Second, I would like to bring forward and specifically talk about temporary foreign workers, not all temporary residents.

The majority of these workers hold an employer-restricted work permit, a work permit that ties them to one employer only during their employment in Canada. All research is unanimous about the very problematic effects of these work permits on workers. It creates an imbalance of power between the employer and the worker, and it puts workers at risk of abuse, particularly those holding low-skilled positions. Much research has also indicated that women may be more at risk. I have witnessed many cases in my own research.

I bring this up simply to reiterate recommendation 14 of the 2016 standing committee report. It did say that these permits should be replaced by open permits. No other legal workers in Canada are subject to such measures and foreign migrant workers should not be either.

My third point is about pathways to permanent residency. Some temporary workers have this access to permanent residency, and this is a very positive policy, of course, but there are aspects that require improvement. I will mention three difficulties that many workers encounter.

First of all, temporary workers cannot access settlement services during their period as a temporary resident. This may have long-term impacts once they become a permanent resident, for instance, language acquisition.

Second, the procedures to make the transition from temporary to permanent status require the employer's participation. This provision makes temporary workers extremely dependent on their employer, including higher-skilled workers.

Third, the procedure itself is complex and many hire private consultants to assist them. Some find themselves in the stressful [Technical difficulty—Editor]

Can you hear me, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I can hear you. Can you hear me?

[Prof. Danièle Bélanger]

Yes, I can hear you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

We stopped at your third point with respect to the complexity of the system.

[Prof. Danièle Bélanger]

Should I stop now, or...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You can keep going. We'll give you more time.

[Prof. Danièle Bélanger]

Okay. I have maybe one and a half more minutes left.

This leads me to my last point, which was recommendation 16 in the previous report of the standing committee. It called for wider access to permanent residency for temporary workers.

The reality of temporary workers is that many of them do not fill temporary labour needs at all. Many of them work in the most difficult jobs that provide essential services to our communities. They pick the local fruits and vegetables that we eat, change the beds in our hotels, clean toilets in private homes, take care of our elderly and our children, and will increasingly do these tasks. These labour needs are much longer term.

To conclude, I'd like to stress that, in assessing the situation with respect to temporary workers in Canada, more space could be provided to workers themselves—Canadian-born, immigrants and temporary workers—to better understand the dynamics that their presence involves. Much of the focus, I find, is on administrative measures rather than on the bigger picture. The effects of policies on the workers' lives are extremely important for Canadian society and the labour market.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boldt, thank you for coming back.

[Randy Boldt, As an Individual]

Thanks very much for having me.

I'm going to be covering two topics today. One is parents and grandparents. The other is business immigration. I'm choosing those because they're somewhat controversial.

Many Canadians support economic immigration. They have an understanding of our obligations for humanitarian classes, but are bewildered by why so many parents and grandparents are being approved. They say things such as the last 10 years of somebody's life is where 80% of our health care costs rise, or that they're just here to collect old age security or the guaranteed income supplement.

Those of us working in immigration realize how important this category is for many families in Canada. We're aware of the cohesiveness it brings to immigrant families whose lives feel weaker and less stable without the support of their parents.

We also suspect that it leads to far better economic outcomes, due to things like reduced reliance on subsidized day care, large transfers of monies from parents to their children, more stable marriages and generally less reliance on social services—perhaps even allowing families to have more children, thereby reducing the need for more immigration to support job growth.

The world is much wealthier now, and the old Indian couple you see walking around the community may have sold their family farm and transferred half a million dollars to their Canadian children. The Chinese couple shopping with their grandchild in the supermarket looking earnestly for bargains may have sold a house in Shanghai for a million, and brought all of their money to Canada.

I travel to China a great deal. When I am there, I often go for a walk in the park in the morning. It could be any park, anywhere in China. In each and every park there are thousands of elderly Chinese who gather in the mornings. They're all doing amazing exercises and activities. They're singing, dancing, doing tai chi, weight training, and on and on. They all eat healthily and have good mobility.

When I go to a food court in any mall in Canada, I see hundreds of unhealthy Canadians drinking litres of sugar-filled soft drinks to wash down their plates of burgers and poutine. I note the absence of elderly immigrants consuming the same things. If they are at the food court, they are generally talking and socializing. If they are eating, it is with care and attention to what they consume.

Are these older people coming to Canada to take advantage of our health care system? The real truth is that our health care system is not that good, and is only ranked 30th by the World Health Organization. I know many Chinese who regularly go back to China for health care treatment. I don't know many who have immigrated to Canada for our health care system.

Many Canadians are not aware that parents who are sponsored by their children are not able to claim old age security for their first 10 years in Canada, and 20 years for the guaranteed income supplement. Of course, unless they work in Canada, they don't qualify for the Canada pension plan. That means the costs of their care must be borne by themselves and their children. By having these parents and grandparents come to Canada, they add to the lives of the whole family.

I also suspect that they have a net positive economic impact. How much, I really don't know. They bring money, buy goods and services, have overseas pensions and reduce social services costs for their children.

I would love the Canadian government to analyze the effects, costs, and economic benefits of parents and grandparents. I think that if we were to analyze it, the results would be truly astounding. Parents and grandparents have a very different demographic impact on our society. They won't be having more children and their main purpose in life is simply to support their children here in Canada.

If we don't undertake an analysis based on facts, many Canadians will continue to not appreciate this important group of immigrants. Maybe the results will be different than I expect, and maybe they are a drain on our health and social systems. I doubt it, and I suspect all of you do, as well.

Please consider undertaking an economic analysis of this group. It will help the national discussion greatly and lead to greater acceptance of grandparents and parents in Canada. Such an analysis of economic data will add to the unity of our country and allow any government to develop better immigration policies.

I've been involved in business immigration for 20 years. When I was first hired by the Manitoba government, my job was to attract overseas investment to the province. I quickly discovered that most foreign direct investment to Canada came to invest in natural resources or in large manufacturing sectors in the Golden Horseshoe. Unfortunately, Manitoba has less than the national average of natural resources and doesn't have a city of several million to attract large manufacturers.

I was also tasked with managing the business immigration program, which was effectively handing out business cards and asking immigrants to come to Manitoba. At that time, there was a federal entrepreneur program. In a good year, Manitoba might get four business immigrants. This led us to decide to try a different approach.

We launched the Manitoba provincial nominee program for business in 2000. It was the first business immigration program under the nominee program. From the moment we launched the program, there were hundreds of business immigrants wanting to move to Manitoba. It has truly transformed our province, with hundreds of new businesses being started.

A subsequent program went to Saskatchewan and did the same thing there, and they have enjoyed similar or even more success.

Under Minister Kenney, the federal government effectively stopped their business immigration programs, both the entrepreneur program and the investor stream. Minister Kenney was able to obtain tax filings for a cohort of live-in caregivers and found that they actually paid more income tax than the federal immigrant investors did. Based on this result, he correctly closed down the program.

Sadly, the Quebec immigrant investor program continues to this day, with about 1,750 families per year being approved. It has three major faults. One is that very few of the approved applicants actually establish a business in Canada or in Quebec. Two, they pay very little income tax. Three, Quebec is effectively selecting immigrants for B.C. and Ontario, which is outside of their agreement with the Government of Canada. They are allowed to select Quebec immigrants but not immigrants from out of province. Estimates are that less than 10% of Quebec investors actually settle in Quebec.

I would encourage this committee to look at the abuses of this program. It is not a program that should be supported based on any analysis.

I'm here to advocate for real business immigration programs—both entrepreneur programs and investors. Most provinces have started entrepreneur programs with varying degrees of success. The most successful ones allow business people to come to Canada under a work permit, establish a business, and then obtain immigration once the business has been operational for six months. The process is working, and I would encourage the federal government to consider launching a similar national program. If it is done well, it would create thousands of new companies and tens of thousands of new jobs.

Similarly, the Quebec investor program needs to be wound down like the federal investor program was. In their place should be a real investor program, where applicants would invest $1 million in real risk capital placed into privately run investment funds. These funds could be used to invest in the private sector, non-public companies in Canada, or in private-public partnerships, particularly those that have a social benefit.

This idea came to my attention from Olivia Chow, who is advocating for the establishment of a federal investor stream with some of the money being used for social development. This idea is worth considering. In my opinion, there is an appetite for about 3,000 of these kinds of visas per year for investors. If the required hold period was for seven years, and the risk capital per person was $1 million, it would effectively raise $21 billion in private sector investment over this time frame. That's a lot of private sector investment for Canada. All of these applicants would be screened to an even higher standard than our skilled workers.

A local politician in Manitoba recently asked me what I thought of business immigrants being “fast-tracked” into Manitoba. I laughed when he asked, as business immigrants to Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada need to provide at least five times more documents, take two to three times longer to process, and only get work permits when they've established a business. This process takes at least four years—not much of a fast track compared to the express entry, which is supposed to take about six months.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I just need you to wrap up.

[Randy Boldt]

Okay.

Finally, if the government agrees to get back into business immigration, please recognize that unless you hire people with a business background, then it's very difficult to develop these programs, as all provinces do that.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

Thank you.

Ms. Zahid, or should we go back to Marwan?

[Salma Zahid, Scarborough Centre, Lib.]

It's not me. It's in the second round.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

I can go first. We were switching, and then....

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

You're not now. Okay, you're going to go first.

Mr. Tabbara.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to both of the witnesses for coming here. Sorry, I'm losing my voice a little, so be patient with me.

For the first witness who spoke via teleconference, you mentioned the percentage of temporary foreign workers who come into Canada per year. We're seeing a lot of economic migrant workers across the globe. There was around 258 million in 2017. In 2000, that number was around 150 million, I believe. We're seeing a lot of individuals moving because of economic opportunities.

Perhaps you could elaborate. We've taken in roughly over 300,000 new immigrants per year, and I think it would be an easy way for us to capture a lot of these economic immigrants and ensure that they have a pathway to citizenship. They're already paying taxes within our country, and probably speak sufficient English or French. How do we ensure that we have these pathways?

Mr. Boldt, you mentioned business migrants and how to fast-track them. We did implement the global skills strategy. We can now get in economic migrants within a couple weeks, but they're generally high-skilled migrants. How can we make certain policies to harness a lot of these economic migrants who are already here, and get ones who are ready and have certain skills into Canada a lot faster?

[Prof. Danièle Bélanger]

That's a very good question. How do we ensure we keep more of our temporary workers who already have established networks, have Canadian work experience, some of whom have some of their family members here as well who are also in the workforce?

A recent study that was done by Statistics Canada in partnership with IRCC indicates that permanent residents who were here before as temporary workers do much better in the labour market than those who come directly into Canada as permanent residents.

That being said, one obstacle right now is that only those with higher skills and higher human capital are provided with the opportunity to stay. However, many of those in other occupations who have lower education, let's say, are likely to stay in those occupations because this is where they have acquired their Canadian experience. It would certainly be a very positive development to encourage the government to retain more of them regardless of their level of education, for instance, and value their Canadian experience more.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned also the dependency on employers. I want you to elaborate on that a little bit more. Is that a barrier for them to get permanent residency here? I want you to elaborate on the dependency on the employer.

[Prof. Danièle Bélanger]

The dependency in relationship to permanent residence may be a barrier because it's the employer who has to initiate that process with the temporary worker. The employer has to provide documentation about the worker and has to offer continuous employment after the acquisition of permanent residency. Of course, the individual doesn't have to stay with that employer, but what we see in the field is that with good employers, things go smoothly, but if you have employers who tend to be more abusive, they use that as a carrot. If the workers don't work overtime; if they don't accept those working conditions, they will not assist the workers with their transition to permanent residency. That dependency can be very problematic.

We hear a lot of workers say they are putting up with this but as soon as they have their permanent residency, they will certainly work elsewhere because this doesn't follow their contract, or the labour code is not respected, and it can be very tricky.

This is an issue for sure.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

For my second question, Mr Boldt, at the very end of your testimony you mentioned business migrants and that they are fast-tracked. What other types of programs would you like to see considering that? I mentioned the global skills strategy, so that's one, but what else would you like to see?

[Randy Boldt]

Canada remains a very attractive place to come and establish a business. The Canadian government has very few programs to encourage that. We try to encourage foreign direct investment, but it's difficult for companies to come here and establish a business. There's a growing desire in many countries around the world to establish a base in Canada.

One of the advantages we have is that unlike I think any other country in the world we have a free trade agreement with both Europe and the United States and Mexico. To establish a base here in Canada gives that opportunity for companies. We don't have a program to allow that.

If you were a medium-sized business in Indonesia and you wanted to come here to establish a business here, the federal government doesn't have a program to allow and encourage that. You can do an intra-company transfer, which is a temporary work permit, but it really is not facilitating the movement of companies to come to Canada. It's not encouraging it. By getting rid of the entrepreneurs and investors program and not replacing it with something, we're not attracting companies to come here.

I think all of you are aware that foreign direct investment over the last couple of years has dramatically fallen in Canada, so it would be good to try to develop programs for that.

[Marwan Tabbara, Liberal, Kitchener South—Hespeler, ON]

You mentioned the investor program. I could be mistaken, and maybe you can elaborate a bit more, but I believe the criterion was having a certain amount of funds within your bank account and when you did immigrate to Canada and wanted to start up a business or invest, a certain portion of those funds had to remain in the account. It was a significant amount. That was the barrier before, then, too.

[Randy Boldt]

The money wasn't used, sadly. I was the person responsible for that in Manitoba, and I administered those funds in Manitoba. The money came from the federal government to the provinces to administer, and the provinces did nothing with those monies.

What I think needs to be done is.... The provinces had to guarantee the repayment of those monies. If the investor deposited $400,000, they were guaranteed to get $400,000 back, so it wasn't risk capital. If we are going to have an investor program, the investor has to agree to invest in real risk capital.

[The Chair, Liberal, Rob Oliphant]

I need to end it there. I'm sorry, but we're a little over time.

Thank you.

Ms. Rempel.