Evidence of meeting #114 for Citizenship and Immigration in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was students.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Director, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I don't have that data with me right now.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
I do, Ms. Spattz. The answer is 9,000. There are 9,000 international students in the CEGEP system in Quebec.
Are you telling me that 9,000 study permits, out of all Canadian study permits, reflect a huge and unsustainable increase?
Senior Director, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
As you know, we take a whole-of-government, pan-Canadian view when implementing our reforms.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
That's fine, that's the answer I wanted to hear.
Mr. Chair, what I've just been told is that a pan-Canadian measure was put in place to address exponential growth, perhaps at colleges in Ontario. In doing so, they didn't realize that Quebec's education system is different from those in the rest of Canada.
The CEGEP network in Quebec only has 9,000 international students. However, the post-graduation measure implemented from coast to coast is hurting Quebec's regions. For us, having 10 technicians graduate from the Centre de formation professionnelle de Roberval—Saint-Félicien with a degree in wood processing is extremely important for the region. It keeps our factories running.
However, I was told verbatim that they didn't know how many international students there were in the CEGEP system. That response comes from the department. Frankly, it's disappointing. I know the number. How is it that I'm aware of it, yet the department doesn't know that there are only 9,000 international students in Quebec's CEGEP system? In addition, I'm told that they're taking Canada-wide measures and that they don't care about the Quebec CEGEP network. That's what we've just been told.
I'm rather outraged. I would like to end my questions now. Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, the time is almost up. You have 20 seconds. Do you want them to answer?
No. Okay. Thank you.
We will go to MP Kwan for two and a half minutes.
Please go ahead.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Thank you.
My question is a follow-up.
The reason I asked about the consultation process is not that I don't know what they said, since I've been meeting with them directly. The question is whether the government knows what they're saying. That's what I'm trying to glean.
To that point, I wonder if you can spend a bit of time telling us what the government's response is to the concerns that have been raised, particularly by public colleges and universities. Second to that, I would ask the officials to table the government's response to public colleges and institutions.
Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Which concern in particular would you like me to address?
Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Would you like me to start in one place in particular?
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Well, how many concerns have you heard and what are they? Maybe you can summarize them and tell the committee what the government's response is. Then you can table the rest that you have not been able to cover.
Mr. Chair, more than that—because I'm going to run out of time—I would ask the officials to table documentation on the analysis the government has done on the implications of changes to the levels plan and to the decisions related to international students. What analysis have they done with respect to those changes? What are the implications for institutions and Canada's economy, broken down by province, territory and community? As we already heard from MP Brunelle-Duceppe, implications for Quebec are different from those in British Columbia or Ontario. Even in my own province, there are differences among Vancouver, Cowichan, Ladysmith and other, smaller communities.
What analysis has the government done, and will you table that information with the committee?
Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Broadly speaking, there is consensus among stakeholders and other levels of government that there is a need for greater volume controls. There is broad understanding and concern over program integrity issues and the vulnerability of students. I would say all partners in this equation are acknowledging those issues. Where there's sometimes disagreement is the pace of change. The pace of change has been quite rapid. It's been necessary, important work, but it's been a disruptive year and it will take a period of adaptation.
NDP
Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC
Obviously, I'm not getting real answers, but just some talking points.
What I would really like is for the officials to table with the committee a detailed breakdown of the concerns that have been raised by category of institution—public colleges, private colleges, public universities, private universities—and by the different kinds of stakeholders, as well as the government's response to the concerns that have been raised and the analysis that has been done.
Mr. Chair, can I get confirmation that we'll get that information before the committee finalizes the writing of this report?
Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We'll take back the request to the department and get back to the committee.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
With that, I want to thank the witnesses on behalf of the committee.
We're going to suspend for five minutes before we set up the next panellists.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
I call the meeting back to order. Welcome back.
I would now like to welcome our witnesses for the second panel.
As an individual, we have senior policy fellow at the Canada excellence research chair in migration and integration, Naomi Alboim. Welcome, Ms. Alboim.
We also have a professor of economics. It's been a long time since I took that course when I was doing my engineering studies. Dr. Mikal Skuterud has to go at one o'clock to teach 300 students. Honourable members, if you have questions for him, please adjust accordingly.
From the U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities, we have chief executive officer Dr. Chad Gaffield here in person. Welcome.
I will give Dr. Skuterud five minutes for an opening statement.
Please go ahead.
Professor Mikal Skuterud Professor of Economics, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
Thank you for inviting me.
My name is Mikal Skuterud. I'm a professor of economics at the University of Waterloo; the director of the Canadian labour economics forum; and the Roger Phillips scholar in social policy and fellow in residence at the C.D. Howe Institute.
On my website, you'll find my disclosure statement. In it, I state:
...as a researcher, I deliberately avoid advocacy as I believe I can contribute more by seeking and disseminating objective evidence than in advancing agendas. For this reason, I have throughout my career declined funding from organizations with explicit advocacy mandates or private interests.
For 20 years, my research has been focused on the economics of Canadian immigration. I come to this research as a Canadian immigrant who deeply values Canada's exceptional record of combining high immigration levels with broad public support for immigration.
What explains Canada's exceptionalism? It's not complicated. Canada's geography and non-porous borders enable it to be highly selective in the immigrants it admits. Since 1967, we've relied on a points system that prioritizes skilled workers. The consequence is that the wage suppression effects of immigration are concentrated at the top end of the income distribution so that immigration tends, if anything, to reduce, not exacerbate, economic inequality. In Canada, lower-income citizens don't see immigrants as competition; they see them instead as doctors, professors and scientists who make their lives better.
Sadly, however, what we've seen in recent years is a dismantling of Canada's skilled immigration system as policy-makers have become obsessed with plugging holes in lower-skilled labour markets.
In March 2016, I received an email from then immigration minister John McCallum requesting feedback on six policy questions. A group of nine academic economists met with the minister three weeks later to discuss his questions, and on May 10, we sent him a 32-page written response. I think it's safe to say the feedback was never read by any of Mr. McCallum's three successors. In rereading this feedback, there's little doubt in my mind that the mess the system finds itself in now could have been avoided if our recommendations had not been ignored.
First, we advised against introducing a low-skill component to the express entry system, which is precisely what category-based selection has done. Second, we warned the government to proceed carefully in expanding foreign student admissions to two-year college programs that are focused on selling immigration, not education. Third, we recommended that the comprehensive ranking system for prioritizing economic class immigrants include as criteria both an applicant's field of study and the post-secondary institution from which they graduated.
To anyone who believes federal government policy is not responsible for the explosive growth in the foreign student admissions we've seen, I recommend comparing the federal government's 2014 and 2019 international education strategy reports. What you'll see is an unambiguous shift in focus from attracting and retaining the “best and brightest” to diversifying foreign students' fields, levels and locations of study. By 2019, there was a recognition that the potential to scale up foreign student entries and in turn immigration levels lay in the colleges that were struggling to fill their seats with domestic students. The system became fixated on growth and quantity and lost sight of the consequences for quality and our skilled immigration system.
For the past decade, Canadian voters have been told by their federal government that significant increases in immigration levels would be a tonic for Canada's sluggish economic growth. For academic economists who study immigration and understand how economies work, this narrative might have felt good, but it wasn't true. We warned the government, but nobody likes a cold shower, and we were ignored. We are seeing the consequences now.
Thank you again for the invitation. I'm happy to take questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
We will now go to Dr. Gaffield.
Please go ahead.
Dr. Chad Gaffield Chief Executive Officer, U15 Group of Canadian Research Universities
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Good morning, everyone.
Members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you today.
U15 Canada is an association representing the country's leading research universities. Through graduate programs and research activities, U15 members educate 60% of all graduate students in Canada, including 70% of all international doctoral students. These students go on to contribute across the private, public and non-profit sectors across the country while also enhancing Canada's connections around the world.
I want to start by speaking to all current and prospective international students who may be watching today. U15 universities deeply value the promise and perspectives you bring to our campuses. You remain welcome at our universities. We strongly believe in your potential to help Canada and the world build a better future, and we recognize and applaud the foundational contributions that previous generations of international students have made to Canada.
At the same time, we are deeply concerned about how recent changes to the immigration and study permit policies—such as delays in study permit processing, a freeze on permit issuance and the imposition of caps on study permits—have created significant and immediate negative consequences and continuing uncertainty. These changes have disrupted international student recruitment, weakened Canada's global reputation and deterred top talent from choosing to study in Canada.
Despite the fact that leading research universities like ours have managed international recruitment wisely and responsibly, our campuses are acutely feeling the impact of these policy shifts as they directly affect our capacity to attract and retain highly qualified international students. We understand completely that Canadians were rightly concerned about unrestricted increases in international students at some post-secondary institutions and how these increases resulted in additional pressure on housing, health care and other aspects of community life. For example, we know that the number of international students at public colleges in Canada increased by over 265% in just a decade.
In contrast, leading research universities have helped build Canada's international reputation by maintaining high standards of excellence for admission, as well as providing wraparound support for international students. U15 universities have seen only modest growth in international enrolments, averaging less than 7% a year over the last decade. Moreover, all of our universities offer housing services, provide access to counselling services and offer language supports.
We have developed best practices when it comes to recruitment, retention and support for international students. The result is that in Ontario, for example, international students at the six U15 universities make up on average 20% of the full-time student body. To compare averages, almost 47% of students at Ontario's 24 public colleges are international.
The wise and responsible efforts of research universities provide real benefits to all Canadians. Indeed, in the context of domestic tuition freezes and diminished educational transfers from some provincial governments, international student revenue helped ensure an accessible and affordable education for the next generation of domestic Canadians while also contributing $31 billion to the Canadian economy, as judged by the most recent data.
For these reasons, corrections to Canada's immigration system should be targeted measures rather than blunt instruments. As such, we have the following three recommendations.
One, rebuild Canada's reputation and reassure international students. Recent changes have already caused a notable drop in applications from graduate students. In the second quarter of 2024, the Canadian government processed 54% fewer study permit applications compared to the second quarter of 2023. This decline threatens our ability to attract and retain the best and brightest.
Our second recommendation is to implement a distinctions-based approach to promote excellence. The absence of distinctions in the new study permit caps does not reflect the public assurances that the changes were aimed at “bad actors”. For this reason, U15 Canada recommends creating a recognized institutions framework to allow IRCC to focus policy interventions where they are needed most. This framework should set high standards for institutions, use IRCC-held data to ease administrative burdens and focus on recruitment, admissions and student support practices that ensure excellence.
Our third recommendation is to protect Canada's highly qualified talent pipeline for graduate students. We are particularly concerned about the recent extension of the study permit cap to include graduate students. Graduate students make vital contributions by working in labs and libraries, facilitating industry collaborations and driving critical research. In a competitive global market for talent, these are highly mobile individuals. We urge the government to reconsider this policy, at least by exempting doctoral students, who play a fundamental role in Canada's success.
Overall, Canada must send a clear message that we welcome the best and brightest from around the world to help make a better future.
Many thanks, and I look forward to our discussion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you, Mr. Gaffield.
Now we will go to Madame Alboim for five minutes.
Please go ahead.
Naomi Alboim Senior Policy Fellow, Canada Excellence Research Chair in Migration and Integration, As an Individual
Thank you for inviting me, and good afternoon, everybody.
I will focus today on some unintended impacts of the changes to the international student program, on the importance of federal-provincial collaboration and on how to ensure the long-term sustainability and success of the program.
First, regarding unintended impacts, Canada's reputation as a consistent, predictable provider of excellent education opportunities for international students has been hurt and will need to be addressed. Many international students are choosing to go elsewhere, as evidenced by post-secondary institutions receiving fewer applications than even their reduced allocations allow. Canada's rationale for cutting back on both permanent and temporary immigration could feed into anti-immigrant sentiment, unfairly blaming migrants and immigrants for housing shortages, access to health care and other systemic problems.
Reductions in international students create an immediate financial impact on educational institutions, local communities and employers. Some will adapt, but others will not. This will affect the domestic population. Restricting access to post-graduation and spousal work permits will discourage mature student applicants and limit their labour market participation. Reductions of 60% in federal economic programs and 50% in provincial pathways to permanent residence will have a significant impact on both current and prospective students interested in applying to Canada and staying here. The trend to tie study and work permits to current Canadian labour market needs may make Canada a less attractive place to study and may not be in Canada's best interests since labour market needs change rapidly.
Second, regarding federal-provincial collaboration, the imposition of caps is an example of a change that lacked meaningful provincial involvement. I agree that some numerical limits were necessary. The international student program had become completely demand-driven, with few controls or oversights by either level of government. However, the cap is a blunt instrument imposed unilaterally by the federal government, despite it sharing responsibility for immigration with provincial jurisdiction. The cap was not based on evidence of specific problems. It appears that the IRCC determined an arbitrary percentage reduction of 35% and worked from there, painting all provinces and post-secondary institutions, whatever their level or reputation, with the same brush. The federal formula for provincial allocations was complicated and not very transparent.
I recommend a bottom-up approach in which each province rolls up data based on defined criteria for institutional capacity, outcomes and compliance, and then proposes and negotiates its allocation with the federal government. I also recommend the joint development of principles for the allocation of permits to educational institutions within provinces, ideally incorporating criteria for the proposed recognized institution framework.
The proposal to develop a recognized institution framework is an excellent opportunity for federal-provincial collaboration that jointly determines what is expected of post-secondary institutions in relation to the international student program, over and above being a provincially designated learning institution, or DLI; what the benefits would be for those recognized; and the impact of non-recognition. The framework could require institutions to demonstrate, for example, excellence in integrated education programs for domestic and international students; collaboration with the settlement sector; provision of housing; use of co-op, internship and exposure to employer programs; training, monitoring and delisting overseas recruiters; and outcome and satisfaction data by institution comparing domestic and international students. Once the framework has been jointly developed, provinces would be responsible for implementing and monitoring it. The criteria could potentially be expanded to all DLIs wanting to accept international students.
Finally, there is sustainability and success. Long-term sustainability and success will depend on a variety of factors, such as strong federal-provincial collaboration, including the joint development of objectives and planning to achieve them; a focus on excellent education and services to ensure student success; high-quality recruitment and selection processes of students from diverse countries, with high entrance requirements and accurate pre-arrival information; stable and sufficient funding for post-secondary institutions; and streamlined pathways to post-graduation work permits and permanent residence for those who excel and want to stay.
Going forward, Canada's education strategy for 2019 to 2024 is expiring this year. It is the perfect time for the federal government and provinces to jointly develop the objectives of the international student program for the next five years and to plan to implement them collaboratively.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Thank you very much.
Now we will go to the rounds of questions.
I have two choices. Tell me which one you like. I can go with six minutes for each party, then two minutes, two minutes, one minute and one minute, or I can go with eight minutes, eight minutes, seven minutes and seven minutes.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Sukh Dhaliwal
Okay. We'll do six minutes, then.
Mr. Kmiec, you have six minutes. Please go ahead.