Summary Report: Consultations on Immigration Levels for 2012 and Beyond

Table of Contents

Annexes

The full report (includes annexes) is offered in PDF format. For more information or to download the appropriate viewer, check the Help page.

Executive Summary

Over the summer of 2011, Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) held two distinct but complementary consultations related to immigration levels:

  1. 2012 Immigration Levels: Stakeholder Consultation (June 21 to July 15, 2011)
  2. Immigration Levels and Mix: Stakeholder and Public Consultations (Stakeholder round tables July 12 to August 16, 2011; online consultations with stakeholders and the public from August 29 to September 19, 2011)

Key Findings

N.B. The findings summarized in this report reflect only the views of those who participated in the consultations. These views are not representative of the overall Canadian population or CIC stakeholder community.

A) 2012 Immigration Levels: Stakeholder Consultation

Every year, consultations on annual immigration levels are required to gather stakeholder insight for consideration in the preparation of CIC’s Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, which is tabled by November 1 of each year.

The 2012 Immigration Levels Consultation consisted of an online consultation with stakeholders. From June 21 to July 15, 2011, CIC invited over 750 organizations, including employers, unions, sector councils, settlement service providers, non-governmental organizations and other key stakeholders, to participate in an online consultation to gather their views on immigration objectives and factors to consider when establishing immigration levels.

The online survey built on consultations from past years in order to track responses from stakeholders and determine if their views on immigration levels had changed over time. Stakeholders were provided with a background document to assist in responding to the survey questions. The online component was complemented by consultations with Canada’s provinces and territories, the City of Toronto and other federal government partners.

Refer to Annex A for the 2012 levels background document entitled Immigration Levels Planning: Balancing Priorities to Meet Canada’s Immigration Objectives and Annex B for the online questionnaire.

What we heard

Over 170 stakeholders participated in the online consultation on 2012 Immigration Levels.

  • Respondents reported a generally positive or neutral experience with Canada’s current level of immigration.
  • Participants felt that the immigration system needed to first and foremost support the country’s economic needs while ensuring that immigrants can be properly integrated to give them a better opportunity to succeed and contribute in Canada.
  • Some suggested that longer processing times needed to be addressed.

When asked to consider how immigration can be positioned to meet a variety of objectives, respondents ranked the objectives in the following order:

  1. Supporting long-term economic growth
  2. Meeting current labour market needs
  3. Supporting population maintenance or growth
  4. Assisting family reunification
  5. Protecting refugees
  6. Promoting regionalization

When establishing immigration levels, respondents indicated that the immigrant economic issues were most important, followed by the basic needs of the immigrants, integration issues, the impact on the host population, resource issues and the sustainability of immigration.

B) Immigration Levels and Mix: Stakeholder and Public Consultations

CIC is of the view that a longer term approach to levels planning is necessary to allow the Department and its partners to plan for and respond to shifts in priorities and circumstances. Engaging key stakeholders and the public on immigration levels and mix provided an opportunity to offer greater context for Canada’s immigration system and its categories, and to receive more informed feedback for consideration in setting CIC policy directions. The input gathered by way of engagement was intended to inform immediate and future policy direction with regard to multi-year levels planning, ministerial instructions, and federal/provincial/territorial negotiations.

In addition to speeches and editorial boards, Minister Jason Kenney, as well as parliamentary secretaries Rick Dykstra and Chungsen Leung, led a series of national round table discussions with stakeholders.

  • July 12, 2011 – Calgary, Alberta (Minister Kenney)
  • July 18, 2011 – Vancouver, British Columbia (Minister Kenney)
  • July 20, 2011 – Toronto, Ontario (Minister Kenney)
  • August 15, 2011– Mississauga, Ontario (parliamentary secretaries Dykstra and Leung)
  • August 15, 2011 – Scarborough, Ontario (parliamentary secretaries Dykstra and Leung)
  • August 16, 2011 – London, Ontario (Parliamentary Secretary Dykstra)

The meetings were attended by representatives from employers, labour, academia, learning institutions, professional organizations, business organizations, regulatory bodies, municipalities, settlement service providers and ethnocultural organizations. The consultations covered topics such as longer-term planning for immigration levels and mix, including specific categories such as parents and grandparents, live-in caregivers, provincial nominees, federal skilled workers, and permanent and temporary immigrants.

A complementary online component to the consultations was held from August 29 to September 19, 2011, to allow the general population, stakeholder organizations and representatives of provincial and territorial governments to provide their views on Canada’s immigration levels and mix.

What we heard: Round tables

The round table meetings were attended by one hundred stakeholders (Calgary: 13; Vancouver: 21; Toronto: 16; Mississauga: 19; Scarborough: 18; London: 13).

The dialogue from these sessions centred on three key themes: levels, mix, and the immigration system and process.

Levels

Participants were generally supportive of the government and its direction on immigration. For the most part, there was consensus that Canada should maintain levels and explore the feasibility of increasing them. Some representatives, however, indicated a desire for a decrease, commenting that decision makers need to consider the costs of integration and the “hidden costs,” such as the impact on the health budget and housing costs.

Mix

There was strong overall support for the Provincial Nominee Program. The program is seen as a Prairies success story where more immigrants could be accommodated without negatively impacting the federal skilled worker programs. From a municipal perspective, capacity is key. The scenario in Ontario is seen to be different than the rest of the country. Municipalities have responsibilities for housing, employment services and other social assistance, and they struggle with their own finite resources when facing complex needs.

There were several suggestions for changes regarding TFWs. The private sector (in particular representatives of oil, gas and trade-based industries) advocated the need for greater flexibility with work permits.

Views on the parents and grandparents stream were mixed. Some participants felt that the program helped Canada attract and retain immigrants, indicating that investors and workers do not want to come to Canada on a permanent basis without their families. Others disagreed, stating that when Australia tightened its family reunification program, it still received all the immigrants it needed. There was general agreement with the importance of finding the right balance with this stream as Canada needs to think of future labour market needs in its current immigration policies.

Participants also believe that international students can be a great resource for eventual immigration, noting that Canada should increase the recruitment of international students and retain them through the Canadian Experience Class (CEC) because they have Canadian credentials.

Some participants, including service provider organizations and the private sector, supported the idea of increasing the focus on the humanitarian stream to fill labour market needs. There was consensus that an increase in privately sponsored refugees would be beneficial as they are often labour-market ready. Participants suggested that government-assisted refugees needed greater investment but applauded Canada’s commitment in this area.

Immigration system and process

For the most part, participants were not well versed in operational processes. Therefore, comments in this area were limited. Stakeholders generally said that a fair system that reduced fraud and distrust in the system would be beneficial to the immigration process and public opinion on immigration. Processing times and the complexity of the system were seen as obstacles. Greater communication with applicants and clearing the backlog (for example, parents and grandparents and FSW) were also suggested, as was setting long-term policy goals for ministerial instructions. Some participants suggested giving employers greater decision capacity on how many economic immigrants should come to Canada. Finally, participants maintained the importance of language, skills, age, adaptability and education as factors for success in immigrating to Canada. More stringent language and employment aptitude testing was suggested.

Other comments

Participants also made other general comments on Canada’s immigration system. Some felt that immigrants needed more information prior to arrival, specifically on opportunities and credential recognition, so that upon landing, they would have realistic expectations of the opportunities that exist and the training they might require. Participants also stressed the importance of language skills on the immigrant’s success. Many believe that immigrants have a responsibility to learn the language before coming to Canada.

What we heard: Online consultation

Over 4,900 respondents completed the online consultation questionnaire—the most of any online consultation hosted by CIC.

There was overall support among these respondents for a decrease in immigration levels over the next five years from the current annual average of 250,000. There was, however, a significant difference in the responses of stakeholders and individuals. The majority of stakeholders said that immigration levels should increase or be maintained. Meanwhile, almost half of the individuals were of the belief that levels should be decreased.

Among all immigration categories, respondents favoured the economic class over all other classes. When asked to rank objectives for economic immigration, respondents were most likely to say it was most important that “candidates have advanced post-secondary credentials (e.g., PhDs)” and that “candidates invest significant levels of capital or create jobs.”

In line with what was heard at the round tables, online consultation participants said that the most important factor in an immigrant’s success in Canada’s labour force would be strong skills in one of Canada’s official languages, followed by a job offer in Canada before they arrive.

There was less support for family class immigration among participants of the online consultations. Almost half of the respondents favoured a decrease in family class admissions. Likewise, almost half of the respondents did not believe it was important to maintain the parents and grandparents category. Participants maintained that the most important element of this category was that it allowed for family reunification and for newcomers to work since their parents or grandparents could care for their children. A clear majority of respondents did not believe that parents and grandparents should be given the same application processing priority as spouses, partners and children.

The protected persons category received the least amount of support from respondents. There was strong support for decreasing the annual number of entries accepted in this category. Overall, a strong majority believed the number should be decreased.

Reports and statistics