Report of Findings: Levels and Mix Stakeholder and Public Consultations

Background

In planning for the total number of people to admit as permanent residents, CIC not only balances immigration objectives but also considers several other factors, including broader government commitments, input from provinces and territories, and current and future economic conditions. The Department must also consider its operational ability to process applications in a timely manner, as well as the capacity of communities to welcome newcomers.

In addition to presenting an opportunity to gather input from stakeholders and the public on key questions facing CIC, the consultations also allowed the Department to share with stakeholders and the public some of the considerations and difficult choices involved in managing a global immigration system.

The consultations presented an important opportunity to generate greater understanding of the trade-offs involved in setting immigration levels. There are competing visions and diverging goals for the future of the immigration program, and there is no single right answer on what the focus should be. Engaging stakeholders and the broader public in that conversation was seen as a key part of developing a plan that will work for Canada going forward.

Methodology

Over the summer period, CIC held in-person and online consultations with stakeholders and the public on immigration levels and mix. These included national round table meetings with stakeholders from July 12 through to August 16, 2011, and online consultations with stakeholders and the public from August 29 to September 19, 2011. The consultations were announced through a news release on July 12, 2011 (see Annex C).

N.B. The round table and online consultation participants volunteered to take part in the consultations. Therefore, the findings summarized in this report reflect only the views of those who participated in the consultations. These views are not necessarily representative of the overall Canadian population or CIC stakeholder community. The results are only one indicator among many that will be used in future policy decision-making processes related to the issues covered in the consultation.

Round Table Meetings with Stakeholders—Key Findings

Overview and Participants

In July and August 2011, CIC launched a series of cross-country consultations on immigration issues. Round table meetings were held with invited stakeholders in the following locations:

• July 12 – Calgary, Alberta
• July 18 – Vancouver, British Columbia
• July 20 – Toronto, Ontario
• August 15 – Mississauga, Ontario
• August 15 – Scarborough, Ontario
• August 16 – London, Ontario

The meetings were attended by one hundred representatives from various sectors, including employers, unions, educational institutions, professional and business organizations, regulatory bodies, municipalities, immigrant services organizations, sector councils and ethnocultural organizations. See Annex D for the list of participants.

Prior to the discussion, participants were provided with background materials that outlined the various challenges and realities involved in managing Canada’s immigration system (see Annex F). The purpose of the meetings was to collect stakeholder input on the right level of immigration to Canada—how many immigrants—and the right mix of the three immigrant classes to Canada – economic, family and protected persons. Stakeholder views were also sought on how best to manage the system in order to provide reasonable processing times and how to improve service.

Key Findings

Following are the key highlights of the discussions from the round table meetings.

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 some suggestions that Canada could explore the feasibility of increasing levels.
• Some representatives indicated a desire for a decrease, commenting that Decision makers needed to consider the costs of integration and the “hidden costs,” such as the impact on the health budget and housing costs.
• With levels currently at 250,000, some participants questioned how best to determine what the correct number should be. Many factors should be considered, including Canada’s optimum population size and economic objectives; what will allow Canada to maintain a competitive edge on the world stage; the anticipated skill shortages, and the population and labour force growth required; and the trade-offs with other social costs.
• Stakeholders commented on the competitiveness of immigration. Since global competitiveness is a reality, it will be important for Canada to attract and retain talent. Some stakeholders discussed benefits of raising levels to meet this challenge and maintain a balance with other streams.
• Some participants commented on the importance of evaluating the success of current and past immigrants (including second-generation immigrants) to understand outcomes and get a realistic perspective of appropriate levels.

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 program. From a municipal perspective, capacity is key. The scenario in Ontario is seen to be different from 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.
• Viewpoints on the TFW program were brought forward throughout the consultation meetings. Some private sector representatives (in particular from oil, gas and trade-based industries) advocated the need for greater flexibility and faster processing for work permits. To increase mobility, there was a suggestion to issue work permits by occupation or sector as opposed to linking them to a specific employer. Some suggested increasing access to the United States labour force in time to allow low or semi-skilled workers to move freely between the two countries for temporary work. Private sector and service provider organizations both noted that the program is being used to staff long-term permanent positions as opposed to its purpose of filling temporary positions. Some wondered if long-term TFWs could be “bridged” to permanent residents, while others commented that temporary workers should be limited in favour of permanent workers.
• 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. Others suggested that some applicants in this category may not be interested in becoming permanent residents, but have been denied visitor visas. Overall, 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.
• Many participants agreed that the Canadian Experience Class stream should be increased and expanded. Candidates in this stream have the language skills, are younger, and are more likely to adapt. Some participants suggested that the CEC should be expanded to offer a path to those who are already here—for example, long-term residents with no status and temporary workers who have been here for extended periods.
• 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 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 more labour-market ready. Participants suggested that government-assisted refugees needed greater investment but applauded Canada’s commitment in this area. The importance of ensuring that settlement and integration services are available to refugees was also noted.

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.
• Most recognized the need to clear backlogs (FSWs and parents and grandparents in particular) but no solutions were mentioned. It is equally important to communicate with applicants so that they know where they are in the process.
• Immigration programs are seen to be working well but processing times and complexity are getting in the way. It was suggested that long-term policy goals must be set for ministerial instructions.
• Some participants suggested giving employers greater decision capacity on the number of economic immigrants who come to Canada.

With regard to high- and low-skilled workers, participants noted the importance of language (and the need for more stringent language testing), skills, age, adaptability and education as factors for success in immigrating to Canada. There was general acknowledgment of the importance of improving credential recognition, ensuring that occupation lists reflect labour market needs, and making the program more flexible to accommodate workers in low-skill or trades occupations.

Other comments

• Stakeholders throughout the consultation process noted the importance of meeting Canada’s objective of reaching a 4% Francophone quota in official language minority communities. Participants commented on the importance of attracting Francophone immigrants to regions with established Francophone communities throughout the country, and said that these objectives should be maintained regardless of mix.
• Some participants felt that immigrants needed more information prior to arrival, specifically on opportunities and credential recognition, so that at landing, they may have realistic expectations of the opportunities that exist and the training they might require.
• Regarding the retention of skilled immigrants, one participant noted that mobility should not be viewed as a failure. In a context of global competition, skilled workers are likely to move between countries for work.
• Participants stressed the importance of language skills for the immigrant’s success. Many believe that immigrants have a responsibility to learn the language before coming to Canada.

Levels and Mix: Online Consultations with the Public and Stakeholders

Methodology

From August 29 to September 19, 2011, CIC held online consultations on immigration levels and mix which were open to anyone who wished to express their views regarding Canada’s immigration system. When CIC announced the launch of its national consultations on levels and mix, the news release for the announcement (see Annex C) included a link to sign up to be informed of the launch of the online portion of the consultation. More than 1,600 people signed up to receive the questionnaire. The online consultations were launched on August 29, 2011, through a news release (see Annex E). The opportunity to participate was also communicated to those who had signed up for information about the consultations through a link posted on the Government of Canada’s Consulting Canadians website and prominently featured on the CIC website.

Online consultation participants began by reading a background paper (see Annex F) that provided information on Canada’s immigration system and programs. Participants then responded to a series of questions (see Annex G) to provide their views on immigration levels, including the appropriate level of immigration for Canada, and the most suitable mix between economic, family class and protected persons.

Over 4,900 responses were received during the month-long online consultation. Of these, 4,780 came from members of the general public, living either within (85%) or outside (13%) of Canada (over 2% did not indicate where they lived). Of these, 71% were Canadian citizens, 9% were permanent residents, 4% were temporary residents and 16% chose not to identify their status in Canada. In addition, 130 representatives of stakeholder organizations participated (see Appendix D for the organizations that participated and consented to having their names made public). Stakeholder participants included a range of organizations, including settlement or integration service providers, immigration lawyers and consultants, community organizations, employer/employee associations, business or sector associations, educational institutions, professional associations, private refugee sponsors, municipal associations or governments, think-tanks and labour organizations. Five representatives of provincial and territorial governments also participated.

Overall findings in this report include responses from stakeholders, the public and representatives of provincial or territorial governments. The differences between the responses provided by representatives of stakeholder organizations and individuals are highlighted in the report, where applicable. Since the number of responses provided by provincial and territorial governments is so low (n=5), these responses are not highlighted in the summary report, although they are included in the overall numbers.

It is important to consider the stakeholders’ responses separately from those provided by the general public as they represent two different perspectives. Stakeholders represented their organization’s experience and knowledge of the Canadian immigration system, and their responses reflected this perspective. The members of the general public, on the other hand, provided their personal perspectives in response to the information in the background paper. As previously noted, however, the respondents were not selected but decided to participate on their own in this consultation and therefore, their views are not representative of the overall Canadian population or the CIC stakeholder community.

Key Findings

Support for immigration levels

There was mixed support among online consultation respondents for decreasing or increasing immigration levels over the next five years from the current average of 250,000. The majority of stakeholders said that immigration levels should increase (56%) or be maintained (29%). Among stakeholders, there was the strongest support (34%) for the 300,000 to 350,000 immigrants per year range. In contrast, almost half (46%) of the general public were of the belief that levels should be decreased. Only a quarter (27%) of the general public respondents said that levels should be increased and another quarter (25%) believed they should be maintained. General public respondents (25%) were most supportive of the 50,000 or less immigrants per year option, with 16% favouring 50,000 to 100,000 and 12% in favour of the 100,000 to 150,000 range. When asked to rank the objectives that should be used to establish immigration levels, “supporting long-term economic growth” was the one most often selected by all respondents (stakeholders and individuals) as the most important objective.

It should be noted that the views on immigration levels among the general public participants of the consultation are significantly different from the findings of CIC’s Annual Tracking Survey. The Tracking Survey is a telephone survey conducted on an annual basis with a representative sample of adults living in Canada to track changes in views on immigration levels, among other things. According to the findings of the tracking surveys from 2004 to 2010, support for immigration levels, whatever they were at the time, remained above 50%. In fact, the number of Canadians who said that there were “too many” immigrants dropped by almost half since 1996. This shows that the general population has a more favourable perception of immigration levels compared to members of the general population who chose to participate in the online consultation.

Mix between economic, family class and protected persons

Respondents were asked to select a percentage for each immigration class so that all three would add up to 100 percent. Support was highest for the economic class, with a strong majority of respondents selecting between 60% and 70%. Respondents most frequently said that family class should represent 20% to 30% of total immigration in Canada and that protected persons (refugees) should be 5% to 10%.

Economic Class

Among all immigration categories, respondents favoured the economic class over other classes. There was somewhat positive support (40%) among all respondents for increasing economic class immigration, although three in 10 (30%) respondents favoured decreasing the number of immigrants brought in through this category. While both stakeholders and individuals supported an increase in economic immigrants, stakeholders were much more likely to support an increase in this category (58%). Among all respondents who thought the economic class levels should increase (n=1,994), over four in 10 (42%) said that family class and protected persons levels should be decreased to accommodate it.

Among respondents who thought economic class levels should decrease (n=1,490), overall, 35% believed that family class should benefit from increased levels as a result. On the other hand, 35% said they did not know which class should have their levels increased as the trade-off to decreased economic class levels. Stakeholders were most likely (25%) to say that both family and protected persons classes should benefit from an increase. However, it should be noted that 43% of stakeholders “did not know.”

When asked to select the distribution between federal and provincial economic programs (factoring in 20% for Quebec’s skilled workers and business immigrants), respondents most often said it should be 40% federal and 40% provincial. Stakeholders most often said it should be 50% federal and 30% provincial. Individuals’ responses were in line with the overall figures: 40% federal and 40% provincial.

When asked who should have the greater say on which economic immigrants Canada should accept, almost half the respondents said that the federal government, provincial or territorial governments (for their own jurisdiction) and employers should work together. A quarter (24%) of all respondents believed that the federal government should have the greatest say.

When asked to rank objectives for economic immigration, respondents were most likely to say that it was most important that “candidates have advanced post-secondary credentials (e.g., PhDs)” (1,137 “most important” rankings) and “candidates who will invest significant levels of capital or create jobs” (1,095 “most important” rankings).

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.

Temporary Foreign Workers

The majority (56%) of all respondents did not believe that additional pathways to permanent residence should be established for low-skilled temporary foreign workers. Differences existed between stakeholders’ and individuals’ responses. A majority of stakeholders (56%) believed that additional pathways to permanent residence should be established. In contrast, 57% of general population participants did not believe low-skilled TFWs should have pathways to permanent residence.

Of the respondents who thought that additional pathways should be established (n=1,465), 43% believed that TFWs had proven themselves with their Canadian employers. When looking at the differences between individuals’ and stakeholders’ rationale for creating pathways to permanent residence for TFWs, stakeholders were most likely to say that Canada needs more low-skilled workers (32%), that TFWs already have Canadian work experience (28%), and that they have proven themselves with their Canadian employer (25%). On the other hand, general public respondents said that TFWs have proven themselves with their Canadian employer (43%), that Canada needs more low-skilled workers (24%), and that they already have Canadian work experience (24%).

Of the respondents who did not think that additional pathways should be established (n=2,772), the majority (54%) believed that Canada needs to invest in and hire Canadians. This view was shared by both stakeholders (51%) and the general public (54%).

Stakeholders thought that temporary foreign workers bridged a labour gap that existed in many industries where workers within Canada were difficult to find. Some felt that the process for bringing in TFWs was too long and onerous, especially given the nature of the jobs to be filled. There were also concerns raised that “low-skilled temporary workers [were] vulnerable to abuse” and needed to be better protected by labour laws.

Family Class

There was less support for family class immigration among participants of the online consultations. Almost half of the respondents (48%) favoured a decrease in family class admissions. Stakeholder organizations, however, were almost equally in favour of increasing (36%) and decreasing (32%) family class admissions. Among the general population, support for decreasing this immigration category was more apparent, with 48% in favour of a decrease and 32% in favour of an increase.

Many of those who supported family class immigration mentioned that it goes beyond economic contributions:

Meeting current labour needs important for the economic growth of the country, however, to retain the skilled workers, family reunification must also be considered of great importance. Workers will be more likely to stay if family [is] nearby.

General public respondent

Among respondents who favoured an increase in family immigration (n=1,591), 48% said it should be done by taking from the protected persons class annual allotment. Meanwhile, among respondents who favoured a decrease in family immigration (n=2,343), 70% said that additional immigrants should be brought in from the economic class.

Parents and Grandparents

Almost half the respondents (45%) did not believe it was important to maintain the parents and grandparents category. Participants maintained that the most important element of this category is that it allowed for family reunification (35%) and for newcomers to work since their parents or grandparents could care for their children (22%). A clear majority (60%) of respondents did not believe that parents and grandparents should be given the same application processing priority as spouses, partners and children.

When asked, unprompted, how Canada should handle the current backlog of applications in this category, respondents favoured increasing the number of parents and grandparents allowed into Canada each year (1,482 mentions), followed by limiting the number of people allowed to sponsor their parents and grandparents (1,275 mentions). On the other hand, 1,272 respondents stated that this was not applicable as the parents and grandparents category should be eliminated.

Many participants, particularly the general population respondents, expressed concern over the financial burden parents and grandparents placed on Canada’s social systems and economy. If one change were made to the parents and grandparents program, 24% of all the respondents (26% of stakeholders and 24% of individuals) said that Canada should require sponsors to be better financially established before they are eligible to sponsor. There were also several unprompted suggestions by participants to devise other solutions to allow parents and grandparents to visit but not become permanent residents or citizens of Canada:

Most parents and grandparents are not interested [in] immigrat[ing], they just want to see their family. [W]hy not make a different process for this kind of category[?] Just give them long term temporary pass and not immigration program. Or limit the age that will be accepted for parents and grandparents sponsorship.

General public respondent

Protected Persons (Refugees)

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, 68% believed the number should be decreased. While stakeholders supported (45%) decreasing the number of refugees being accepted in Canada, they were not as strongly in favour of a decrease as were the general population respondents (69%).

There was a perception among some participants that refugees contributed less to the country. Others were concerned that prospective immigrants to Canada would take advantage of the country’s strong humanitarian tradition: “Protecting refugees is very important. But Canada needs to be sure that they are REAL refugees.”

Participants who favoured an increase in this category (n=517) suggested doing so by taking from the economic class (37%) and family class (34%) categories. Stakeholders (n=36) who favoured increasing annual refugee admissions were much more supportive (44%) of taking from the economic class levels. Of the participants who favoured a decrease in refugees (n=3,339), a majority (52%) believed that levels should be increased in the economic class category as a result.

Conclusion

Protecting the integrity and intent of Canada’s immigration system was seen as paramount for participants in the online consultation on levels and mix. From ensuring that refugee claimants are genuine, to accepting skilled workers to fill labour shortages, to reuniting families in Canada, immigration contributes greatly to Canada’s culture and economy.

While Canada’s economic prosperity is largely believed to be achieved through maintained or increased economic immigration, many participants also said that family class immigration can also contribute to Canada’s success by helping immigrants establish themselves and stay in Canada. When determining the appropriate level and mix of immigrants, it will be important to continually assess the Canadian labour market needs, the rate of population growth (particularly in certain regions), and the country’s ability to support and integrate different classes of immigrants.

While there was no targeted outreach to First Nations on these issues, this is a gap that the department will rectify going forward.