Citizenship and Immigration Committee on April 29th, 2026

[Patrick Chevarie]

Yes, exactly. In 2023, when our workers arrived, the federal program allowed us to hire four. Then the provincial program, a simplified program, meant that we could finally hire the number of workers we needed. It always depends on our finances, too. So I hired eight more, for a total of 12 foreign workers. Then, the following year, four spouses arrived, so we were able to put together a work team to get the business back on its feet. The business had been half-closed for years because there were no local workers to staff it.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

With the new measures announced in March, did you ultimately submit renewal applications for your workers?

[Patrick Chevarie]

I can't apply for a renewal because the workers who are there now know they're going to leave since they can't keep their families. For those who are single, we are above the 15% threshold. However, the 15% threshold means nothing to me, in Quebec, nor to many other companies in Quebec, as we are all at 40%, 50%, 60%, 70% or 80% because of the simplified program.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Had suitable changes been made to the policy, spouses, too, could have renewed their open work permit, even though the primary worker, if you will, could renew theirs for only a year.

[Patrick Chevarie]

Yes, that would have helped until such time as certain rules were changed for rural areas like ours and remote areas.

I'm listening to what's being said right now, and I can see how money is potentially being wasted all over the country. I can understand the government's frustration and its desire to cut down on immigration, but things are different in remote regions like ours. We have a labour shortage; we don't have enough local people to work in our businesses. Whether we are talking about supermarkets, shopping centres, pharmacies, factories, restaurants or hotels, we all have the same problem: remote areas don't have enough local workers to meet labour demands.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

For anyone following these proceedings who doesn't know much about the Îles de la Madeleine, please explain how the situation there is unique in Quebec.

[Patrick Chevarie]

We're a small island of about 12,000 people. During the summer, for a period of eight weeks, we can have between 40,000 and 50,000 people on the island, even 60,000. It's a completely different place in the summer. Our population is aging, and many of our retirees work during the year. There are very few young people in the workforce, because we don't have many young people. People haven't had children in the past 30 years.

Then there's the unemployment situation in the Îles de la Madeleine. It's not something people talk about much. A lot of small businesses open in the summer. We call them unemployment clubs, because people work there for 14 weeks so they can collect employment insurance. They're happy after that, and they relax at home. Unfortunately, people work under the table as well, which means that year-around businesses like mine can't find local people to work, because of the employment system and—

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

I have just a few seconds left, Mr. Chevarie. What's going to happen to your Tim Hortons restaurant in the coming months?

[Patrick Chevarie]

We are going to have to close as our work permits expire in August and September. We'll be forced to close the restaurant, which will become another shuttered business in the middle of town.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Chevarie.

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

That ends our first round. Now we will start with our second round.

Our second round begins with Mr. Davies for five minutes.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Professor Grubel, when I was looking at your impressive body of work over the years, it wasn't until later, after I read about some of the things you've been doing, that I saw you were a member of Parliament. That was a bit of a surprise to me. I'm happy to engage with you today.

In your policy history, you have tended to focus on fiscal responsibility, labour market competition, infrastructure constraints and selective, economically driven immigration.

I'm from the Niagara region in Ontario, and we see first-hand the pressures you have written about: housing shortages, strained infrastructure and employment, balancing labour needs with stagnant wages in key sectors. That lived reality raises a couple of fundamental questions.

I wonder if you could walk the committee through your framework for assessing what you refer to as the net fiscal impact of immigration. What variables matter most, and how should policy-makers interpret those results?

[Herbert Grubel]

The book you're referring to was published by the Fraser Institute, somewhat reluctantly, with a co-author—an American who had lived in Ottawa for a long time. It started off.... Our attention was drawn to the following fact: Statistics Canada found that when immigrants enter Canada, they have an income that is below that of Canadian workers of the same age and education. This low income persists for the next 20 years and never goes completely away. I don't know whether it's discrimination or whatever. That's a fact. When we were writing our book, it was getting worse every five years. Statistics Canada has shown that it has gotten worse.

At the same time, as they settle in Canada, they're entitled to all the government benefits we offer. We also have progressive income taxation, so these immigrants with low incomes are getting all the benefits that are not tied to income, while the taxes they pay are considerably lower because their incomes are lower. We calculated it. This was in the eighties. The several billion dollars' worth of costs that immigrants impose on the rest of Canada was never mentioned. Even then, it was disregarded. We were hated for pointing out these kinds of things. People went, “Oh, this is wrong.” The numbers are there. Nobody refuted them. Of course, the popular media didn't like the idea, because the mood in Canada at the time was still, “Immigrants cannot do any wrong, and we need more and more.”

The question is, do we all want to subsidize the small businessmen of the world? That's an issue we ought to discuss. At the time I was active in writing, these issues were never discussed. We ought to have people from both sides.

Let me say—

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Professor, I have limited time.

I wonder if—

[Herbert Grubel]

Yes. I expect you to interrupt; otherwise, I could keep going.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

Professor, critics say that your approach may underweigh long-term and second-generation benefits.

How do you respond to that? How should governments balance short-term fiscal impacts with long-term economic gains?

[Herbert Grubel]

That is another question we have to look at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

You have one minute.

[Herbert Grubel]

It's not typical. In the longer run, it involves education. I don't know.

[Fred Davies, Conservative, Niagara South, ON]

In your view, how should Canada determine the right level of immigration each year? What economic indicators or capacity constraints should guide those decisions?

[Herbert Grubel]

Have a group of people, like this here, and listen to them—small businessmen, farmers and even the big companies and manufacturers that love cheap, imported labour. Listen to those, and listen to guys like me saying, “If you always have cheap labour available, society has no incentive to adopt labour-saving devices.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Professor Grubel.

Thank you, Mr. Davies. That is time.

We now go to Mr. Deschênes for two and a half minutes.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for Ms. Mayrand.

Let's talk about asylum seekers. In yesterday's economic update, the government revealed that the number of asylum claims had dropped by 64% between early 2024 and early 2026.

You said the number of clandestine entries had increased. That's precisely what we're hearing from groups on the ground.

What's your view of the situation? Do you think the 64% accurately depicts the reality?

[Hélène Mayrand]

That's actually the purpose of the research we're doing in the RMC of Coaticook. Certain realities aren't covered by the data, for instance, in relation to those who are hiding.

Let's go back in time and talk about Roxham Road. There was an influx of people in one place, but people would cross the border, report to the RCMP and apply for asylum.

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada's website showed a remarkable or significant increase starting in 2017. Since 2023, that number has been dropping, and it will continue to drop with all the new restrictions on people's ability to file a claim in Canada. As a result, people will choose other ways in. It will also encourage crime, because smugglers will take advantage of the situation. That's what we are seeing.

We're still collecting preliminary data and documenting how things are playing out on the ground. The RMC of Coaticook is a transboundary region that has never experienced this kind of situation, with people crossing there. They leave either clothes or backpacks. The RCMP is also present, making significant use of drones for border surveillance. Residents have been given pamphlets explaining how to report anything suspicious. In short, this isn't something the area has seen before.

The number of clandestine entries has indeed gone up. Are those people going to apply for asylum? Maybe not, since the rules are being tightened even further. What that does is shift the problem.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

I want to follow up on that, because I understand that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Julie Dzerowicz]

Thank you, Mr. Deschênes.

I'm sorry, but your two and a half minutes are up.

Mr. Joseph, my apologies for forgetting you.

You may go ahead for five minutes.