Evidence of meeting #130 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was economic.
A video is available from Parliament.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Anchor Law, As an Individual
Everything I'm saying is anecdotal and from my practice. Assign what weight you will to that, but—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
The reason I asked the question was that, to justify what you're saying, presumably you have some facts, but if it's anecdotal, that's fine. That's your answer.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Anchor Law, As an Individual
I can provide you with examples, if that's what you'd like.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Anchor Law, As an Individual
For example, I might see an individual who's escaping present-day Turkey because of their political opinion and opposition activity to the government. They tend to speak English reasonably well. They're educated people who've been able to get either a Canadian or a U.S. visa to come here. Once they get that work permit, they will find, in the beginning, just any job. It could be a service sector job. It might be driving for Uber or whatever.
Again, anecdotally, through what I see in my practice, they don't want to stay on Ontario Works. They don't want to be dependent on social services. They do want to make an effort to integrate into the economy.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you.
Ms. Long, I was interested in your legitimate comments about how we choose those who are skilled and not skilled or low-skilled. You also made some comments that language is not an issue. The problem with that, of course, is that Canada is French and English. We speak French and English in this country. We don't speak all languages. Many people do, but as far as the law and everything else is concerned, it's French or English.
I am interested in the legitimate criticisms you made about how we choose high-skilled and low-skilled people. Do you have recommendations as to how that can change?
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
Yes. I think it's a faulty assumption that we only need a certain group of people who already have work in Canada. Many provinces now, with their provincial nominee programs, don't care if it's defined as high-skilled or low-skilled work. If they have a job offer, they should be able to stay.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
There is an issue around whether someone is high-skilled or low-skilled. You made some reasonably good criticisms of that. You must have some thoughts as to how that can change.
4:05 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
My change is.... Why are we making that distinction? If someone has a job offer and an LMIA, which shows that Canadians can't do the job or aren't willing to do the job, then we need them in Canada, period.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Antunes, in recent years Canada's immigration system has focused on economic migration. We do have family reunification. We do have humanitarian streams. But if you look at public opinion, it seems that the reason why most Canadians support the levels of immigration we have is structured around the benefit of the economy. That seems to be the philosophy. Some say that if we move away from that, public support will drop significantly.
You study public opinion. What's your comment on what I've just said?
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Economist and Executive Director, The Conference Board of Canada
Fair enough. I'm not sure I can claim to be an expert on public opinion. I think there are pollsters out there that probably know more.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
November 1st, 2018 / 4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Economist and Executive Director, The Conference Board of Canada
We do track what's being said. I do think it's an important issue. I think we have to educate first. I think we have to be flexible if things are changing.
We have seen the outcomes of things turning for the worse in other areas: very protectionist agendas, for example, and right-wing agendas in other parts of the world.
I would just say we have to be aware of it.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
The problem we have is that we want people to come to this country for all kinds of reasons, compassionate reasons. They are having terrible experiences in other countries through war, pestilence and everything else, but the concentration seems to be on economic migration. That seems to be, at least in my experience in my riding, what most people are interested in. They are interested in the others, but the concentration is on economic migrancy. If we move away from that, what will the public think?
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Economist and Executive Director, The Conference Board of Canada
That's a difficult question to answer. All I can say is that we have taken a very careful look at the economic contribution of each of the classes. We've kept them in line with recent history and with the targets we have currently. I talked a bit about those, but essentially it's 60% or just slightly below that for economic migration.
I think you're right. The focus, certainly from industry, from what I see from organizations that are employers, is on the economic stream. I think we've had a very successful program, in terms of the nominee programs, to bring in people who have, essentially, a job offer that enables them to land in this country running.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Your recent report on the 2018 Canadian immigration summit suggests that the government could be doing a better job strengthening the relationship between itself and the settlement sector. We talk a lot about the settlement sector in this committee.
Do you have any observations or suggestions as to how the government can improve in that area?
4:10 p.m.
Deputy Chief Economist and Executive Director, The Conference Board of Canada
Again, this is a bit outside of what we're specifically researching. I think there are folks in that area who would probably be able to give us better suggestions.
What we are seeing is that the labour market outcomes really aren't as solid as they could be. I talked about a number of pieces, including the language issue, which you talked about earlier. I think it's very important. There are lots of studies showing that labour market outcomes are negatively affected by language skills in particular. I think that's one area that perhaps we should focus on.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I thank all the witnesses for their presentations today.
Ms. Long, I would like to touch on this issue. Canada used to have a program, under the federal skilled worker program, wherein whether you were low-skill, medium-skill or high-skill, you had a pathway to Canada. That's now done away with.
I wonder whether you would recommend that the government bring a similar program like the federal skilled worker program?
4:10 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
I'm not aware of a program where there was low-skilled work under the federal skilled worker program. That may have been before my time. But I would certainly recommend a program where people are allowed to have a clear path toward permanent residency, especially people who have proven that they want to be in Canada. They are here, and they are working in Canada.
Mr. Tilson brought up the issue of language. Right now, people are required to undergo language exams where they have to show that they have a university level of reading, writing, listening and speaking, when they are, for example, in the trades or in positions where they absolutely do not need that to be viable in Canada. They are working in Canada; obviously, they can settle in Canada.
My recommendation would be to have a situation where if they are working in Canada, they can immigrate to Canada, regardless of high-skilled or low-skilled work experience.
4:15 p.m.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
In the caregiver stream, it's been established that Canada actually needs those workers in this country, yet we continue to require them to work for two years before they can make an application. On the principle of “good enough to work, good enough to stay”, would you recommend that the government scrap this two-year work requirement to allow workers such as caregivers to come to Canada and have permanent resident status on arrival?
4:15 p.m.
Barrister and Solicitor, Long Mangalji LLP, As an Individual
I would recommend that workers who have been determined, who already have a job offer in Canada, be allowed to stay.
Under the current express entry system, if caregivers were actually considered to be high-skilled, they could very likely come through express entry very easily. But, because of this high-skilled/low-skilled distinction, where express entry allows only people who have high-skilled work to immigrate through the system, this is not possible.
