Citizenship and Immigration Committee on Nov. 7th, 2024

[Prof. Mikal Skuterud]

I have a lot to say about that. Before I do that, though, I just want to make sure it's okay for me to leave at one o'clock. My understanding was that this meeting would be over at one. I have to teach a class. Am I going to get in trouble if I take off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

That's no problem. You can take off.

[Prof. Mikal Skuterud]

Okay. Good.

That's a good question. All along, with this concern about the exploding NPR population, my first worry was not about housing or youth unemployment; it was that it has been very clear in the data. I was in a TVO interview, I think two years ago, drawing attention to this.

What we had was a bulging population of non-permanent residents who were seeking a pathway to permanent residency. It was growing much faster than the new permanent resident caps could possibly absorb them. The writing has been on the wall for a very long time that this is not sustainable. What is inevitably going to happen is that people will come here under the reasonable expectation that they will be able to make a transition to PR status and they won't be able to do that. What's going to happen is their visas will expire.

Unfortunately, there's a huge data problem behind this, and that's from Statistics Canada. With the way we count the population, we assume that when a visa expires, they leave, so the data might show that the population is stabilizing, but we don't even know because we don't track exits in the data in this country.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Professor Skuterud, I was going to follow up on that.

Seeing the increasing number of people applying for asylum, you noted that 130,000 international students have no realistic path to PR. What do you think will happen in the future?

You have been publicly warning the ministry for at least two years. In that TVO interview, which I saw, you publicly warned that the decisions made by the previous immigration ministers were going to lead to a moment like this, with a large, bulging population of non-permanent residents having no choices and being unjustly put in a very difficult position.

Can you expand on what you think will happen in the coming months?

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Professor, give a brief answer. The time is up.

Go ahead.

[Prof. Mikal Skuterud]

I'm not into predicting these things. I look at the data and I respond. I interpret the data. That's what I do. Trying to forecast the future...I don't know.

I don't think it's true that 130,000 NPRs are going to stay. That's hyperbolic. I definitely don't think that's accurate. We don't know what the number is and IRCC doesn't know what the number is. Nobody knows what the number is because the reality is that we don't know the intentions of migrants. We have no idea. They're making incredibly difficult decisions in a world where there's incredible uncertainty.

The whole system has no transparency or predictability anymore. As I said, the skilled system that was transparent—

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you very much, Professor. I know you need to go at one o'clock.

Mr. Chiang, go ahead for six minutes, please.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Could I ask one question of Professor Skuterud before he leaves?

Professor, based on your work, do you believe that establishing enrolment caps alongside the other measures IRCC has taken might enhance Canada's reputation as a high-quality study destination, as it focuses on a sustainable number of students who can more effectively integrate into the job market post-graduation?

[Prof. Mikal Skuterud]

The minister is aware, I think, that I have never been a fan of caps. I've made that clear to him. Economists don't like caps because as soon as you cap anything, you need the government to allocate, and governments are not good at picking winners.

It is much better to create a very transparent system that is predictable and not politicized. That is what category-based selection has done. It has politicized economic immigrant selection. I've been a strong critic of that. I think that's the worst immigration policy introduced in this country in the last five decades. I feel very seriously about that.

There's no need for caps if you create a transparent system, which we had for decades. The problem is that, now, people are playing the lottery. Post-secondary institutions and employers who take in temporary foreign workers are monetizing that lottery. They're willing to hold it up as a carrot: “Come to Canada and here's your lottery ticket.” That's the problem.

We need a way more transparent system than we currently have.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you for your answer, Professor.

My next question is directed to Ms. Alboim.

Ms. Alboim, to be clear, this was not a unilateral stoppage. We consulted with provinces and territories. Minister Miller asked the provinces to get their houses in order, but they did not. That's why the federal government had to take action on limiting international students.

For my question to you, I will quote a report by you: “Within Canada, public colleges in Ontario receive the lowest level of funding from their provincial government and have relied most heavily on international students as a revenue source.”

Can you speak about the consequences of such a move by provincial governments for international students—specifically for their well-being and success in Ontario—and for institutions from a reputational perspective?

[Naomi Alboim]

Thank you for referring to a report I wrote.

I think it's very problematic when you look at the funding. I can speak directly about Ontario, but it's similar, to different extents, in other provinces.

It was very concerning when the provincial government reduced funding to colleges and universities while simultaneously putting a freeze on the ability of those institutions to raise their domestic tuition. That put institutions in a very serious position. Colleges in Ontario are very entrepreneurial, and they realized they would have to do something to replace the reduction in funding. They turned to international students in unfortunately a very big way that caused real difficulties for the students who came to Ontario, particularly through the public-private partnerships that have been talked about this morning. International students who arrived were getting a subpar education and a subpar student experience. It was being done purely for financial benefit.

I am quite pleased that the federal government used the post-graduation work permit to withdraw the opportunity for students, not current ones, to enter those schools in the future. That in itself has dramatically reduced the number of students choosing to enter the colleges that were providing subpar education. It will have the biggest impact, I think, on.... I mean, students have followed this. They know they're not going to be able to stay to work post-graduation, so they are voting with their feet. They are not going to those colleges.

I think that is a positive thing the federal government did. It has had a positive impact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Mr. Chiang, you have 30 seconds.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you.

I have a question for Dr. Gaffield.

As the CEO of U15, how do you think the recent federal measures could encourage a more responsible approach to international student recruitment by universities and provinces, and help to ensure that the benefits of international students are fully realized without compromising the quality of our system?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

This is the key question and why we are proposing the recognized institutions framework. Institutions that have the capacity to provide for students with a full approach—admission, retention and support for international students—should obviously be promoted by Canada, as they're at the heart of our research and innovation ecosystem and have the kind of talent that Canada needs to thrive in the 21st century. That historically has been one of the great successes in making a strong Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Thank you. Your time is up.

[Paul Chiang, Liberal, Markham—Unionville, ON]

Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

Now we will go to Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe. Then I'll go to MP Kwan, and that will end the meeting.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe, please go ahead.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for participating in this extremely important study.

I will reiterate that the purpose of the motion that brought us here today is to inform us of the current and future impacts of Minister Miller's recent actions. That's what I'm particularly interested in.

Mr. Gaffield, could you inform the committee of the potential impact on your institutions' research programs?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you for the question, which actually goes to the heart of the matter.

If Canada truly wishes to secure its future in the 21st century, it needs a research and innovation ecosystem based on talent—on highly qualified people who can participate in the economy and in all sectors of society. We see that our 15 institutions play a role in animating the entire ecosystem. We work with smaller universities and a number of colleges. Together, we form a whole research and innovation infrastructure. Talent is central to that success.

Obviously, it is absolutely essential that Canada be a country that attracts the best in the world and gives Canadians and Quebeckers the ability to support this research and innovation ecosystem.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I heard you answer a question from my colleague Mr. Kmiec earlier. You were not consulted before these measures were put in place. I spoke to the people at the Réseau de l'Université du Québec and those at the Fédération des cégeps, among others. They were not consulted either. What I understand from this is that, before putting these measures in place, the minister and his colleagues in the department did not consult those who are directly involved, the institutions that are affected by these measures.

Here is my question, which I asked the department earlier. Do these measures seem somewhat improvised to you? Does it seem like there was clearly no stakeholder consultation? Also, do you think we should implement Canada-wide measures tailored to the different realities of educational institutions in Canada, rather than implementing a single measure from coast to coast, as I said earlier today?

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

Thank you for the question. There are two key aspects here.

First, Canada is obviously a very diverse country. There are different traditions and strengths all across Canada. Having a good understanding of the various contexts is essential when developing federal policies.

Second, here is a good example. To manage the research security file, we set up a working group made up of representatives like me. I co-chaired that working group with our government partners. We worked together to develop policies, to see how these measures could be put in place to properly reflect Canada's strengths and differences.

It works. Today, I think it's fair to say that we have the policies we need. We've developed the necessary approaches to manage this file for the good of Canada. To my mind, in this context, that collaboration is essential. We need a kind of working group, for example, that enables us to properly examine a file and fully understand all its complexity in order to achieve a good result.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Correct me if I'm wrong. The creation of a round table bringing together representatives of the federal, provincial and territorial governments as well as representatives of educational institutions may be the most important mechanism to put in place, before announcing these kinds of measures.

[Dr. Chad Gaffield]

In my opinion, the key component is the people working in the field, in universities—or who manage universities—with the necessary knowledge to inform discussions at the federal level. In fact, the reason why U15 Canada was created was to make connections between federal policies and programs and the research ecosystem, in order to better align all of it, to make all programs and policies work better. I think we have what it takes to create good policies, so that what is happening now does not happen again.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Sukh Dhaliwal]

You have 30 seconds.