Why some Chinese immigrants feel they can’t make money in Canada

The Globe (Photo credit: Christine ™)

MARK MACKINNON

SHANGHAI— From Saturday's Globe and Mail

This is part of The Immigrant Answer –The Globe's series on the future of immigration in Canada. Read the original story here.

For young and well-educated Chinese like Emily Gao, the lure of immigrating to Canada is obvious: Clean air, public health care and a strong education system are all draws compared with living in a country that lacks them. Add the large Chinese communities that already exist in places such as Vancouver and Toronto, plus relatively cheap real estate (compared with prices in some Chinese cities), and you have something close to a dream destination.

What’s not so clear is that skilled young workers like her would be better off economically if they make the leap.

“In Canada, you have a good standard of living, but you can’t make big money,” says the 29-year-old Ms. Gao, who has a finance degree from the University of Toronto and owns a home in Richmond Hill, Ont., but is back in Shanghai, where she and her new husband have both found well-paid jobs.

Ms. Gao’s decision to move back home highlights the new realities Canada faces in attracting skilled immigrants. Ironically, she now works to match Chinese buyers with property in Canada, and staffed a booth at this month’s Shanghai World Real Estate Expo where Vancouver-based realtor Westbank Corp. offered everything from condominiums in Vancouver to luxury apartments in Toronto and farmland in Quebec.

Like her, many of the prospective buyers said they admire the social system in Canada but are not sure that they would be better off there.

Another common complaint is that Canada’s shifting immigration policies now favour those with money to invest over the skilled workers they used to emphasize (although changes to the Federal Skilled Worker Program proposed by Immigration Minister Jason Kenney seek to address that).

Once seen as a great place to live and work, Canada is increasingly considered by many Chinese more as a great place to retire.

“My son studied and then worked in Canada, but he’s back in Shanghai because the opportunities are better here now,” said a retired civil servant touring the real-estate show who would only give his family name, Zhou.

Nonetheless, Mr. Zhou was looking at properties in Canada because his son, an investment banker who graduated from the University of British Columbia, has permanent-resident status and would consider returning to B.C. if the whole family could make the move. However, “they want only investors,” he said of Immigration Canada. “You have to have money.”

Wang Huiyao, vice-chair of the Western Returned Scholars Association, an umbrella agency for foreign-educated Chinese academics, says that, rather than trying to attract and keep immigrants, Canada should focus on making it easier for top talent to go back and forth from their birth country.

Talented people should be treated like other resources, and the path cleared for them to move freely, in the same way governments already facilitate the flow of goods and capital, says Dr. Wang, a former graduate student at the University of Windsor and the University of Western Ontario.

“A lot of people live in Canada for a few months, and then China for a few months. ... Our policies don’t really address this new phenomenon,” he says, referring to immigration rules in both Canada and China.

“Right now, there’s competition for talent, a talent war, going on. That’s not healthy. Instead, there should be better planning. Both sides should be facilitating the movement of talent – if Canada lacks nurses and China has [extra] nurses, then China should facilitate nurses going to Canada.”

The sales pitch to top talent should focus on the same natural advantages that had Chinese looking to buy property in Toronto and Vancouver, Dr. Wang says. “Canada’s competitive advantage is not wheat or IT or Northern Telecom any more. The new power of Canada is soft power – the ability to attract people with its education system and health care.”

Related articles

• Immigration applications to Canada drop in Asian countries
• Canada must actively recruit the best and brightest immigrants
• Should Canada screen immigrants based on language or country?
• Start a New Business in Canada by Following the Business Immigration to Canada

How immigrants affect the economy: Weighing the benefits and costs

JOE FRIESEN

This is part of The Immigrant Answer –The Globe's series on the future of immigration in Canada. Read the original story here.

A few months after arriving in Canada in 2005, Edwin Sonsona was working 20 hours a day at six different jobs. He began each morning at 3 a.m., delivering the local newspaper.

By the time the sun was up he would don a uniform to flip hamburgers at McDonald's for $7.25 an hour. He rushed packages around town as a courier and set up store displays for Coca-Cola. Then he would go to a warehouse where he supervised the unloading of clothing destined for Winners stores. In the evenings he delivered Kentucky Fried Chicken until 11 p.m.

He kept up that pace for a year, sleeping four hours a night and taking one day a week to dedicate to his church. It was exhausting, but everyone told him he needed to gain Canadian experience.

“I said to myself, ‘I'm starting from scratch. Nobody's going to help you,' “ Mr. Sonsona said. “Moving from your native land, if you're not motivated, you're not going to be successful – you're going to be a sour-grapes man.”

Mr. Sonsona's experience illustrates many of the hardships faced by immigrants over the last 30 years: Although he has an engineering degree and had been a mid-level employee at a multinational company in the Philippines, Canadian employers gave Mr. Sonsona entry-level, low-skill jobs. Even when working six of them, Mr. Sonsona was still earning less than $30,000 per year, substantially below the Canadian average, meaning he was contributing a relatively small amount in taxes.

Today Mr. Sonsona, now 41, has left the bustle of Winnipeg for small-town life in the immigration hotbed of Steinbach, Man. He is employed full time as a genetic technician at a hog-production company. He also takes shifts as a personal-support worker and works as a dance DJ on weekends. He runs a remittance business from his house that transferred $300,000 back to the Philippines last year (he got about $10 per transaction). And he plans to open an Asian food store later this year. His income is up to about $50,000.

In the long term, he wants to open a hog concern in the Philippines, a mirror image of his Canadian employer: When the Manitoba operation needs more workers, he'll be able to send trained people who already understand how things are done.

Sitting with his young son and daughter, Mr. Sonsona wears a T-shirt that says: “All things are possible.” He is very happy with his life in Canada. A political party even asked him to be their candidate in the last provincial election, but he turned it down – he already wonders where he gets the energy.

Someone once asked him how he could stand to work in the smelly atmosphere of a hog barn. He said he replied, “Every morning when I sweep [up after] the pig, I tell myself it's one more dollar in my pocket.”

For Mr. Sonsona, that's a measurement that counts.

COSTS

Settlement

When an immigrant comes to Canada there are some costs associated with getting them settled. They may need English or French lessons or help navigating the Canadian system, finding schools for their children and beginning a job search. The federal government spends $883-million per year on those services, and each province contributes its own, smaller share.

If immigration (even in the economic-immigrant category) were to rise substantially, those costs would, too – partly as an investment in reducing the potential strain on public services.

Services

As new permanent residents, immigrants become consumers of Canadian public services, such as health care, education, welfare and infrastructure. They contribute to those services through their taxes. A recent Fraser Institute study by Herbert Grubel and Patrick Grady argues immigrants impose a burden of about $6,000 each by consuming more in services than they pay in taxes. But economists Krishna Pendakur and Mohsen Javdani argue the amount is closer to $450. (Each side disputes the other's methods.)

What's clear, though, is that immigrants recently have tended to earn less than the general population.

Unemployment

In the late 1970s, immigrants earned about 85 to 90 per cent of what the Canadian-born earned. By 2006 that figure had fallen closer to 60 per cent, according to a recent study from the Institute for Research on Public Policy. Although employment rates tend to catch up within five to 10 years, it's taking longer and longer for wages to match.

To change those ratios would require, at minimum, greater upfront spending on matching immigration to the country's needs, and in settlement assistance. Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney's current reforms have yet to call for additional investment in selection or settlement.

Remittances

Many immigrants also send money to family in their native country, removing a portion of their income and spending power from the Canadian economy. A Statistics Canada study found that about 30 per cent of immigrants sent money home in the first two to four years after their arrival in Canada, at an average of about $1,450 per year.

BENEFITS

The size of the pie

“Does [immigration] have a positive impact? The answer is probably yes,” said University of Toronto economist Peter Dungan. “The benefits have clearly declined over time, though, because people are not earning to the extent that their equivalent criteria or credentials should allow them.”

If Mr. Sonsona and immigrants like him bring complementary talents to Canadian skills and capital, then all Canadians should benefit. The economic pie gets bigger and so does everyone’s share of that pie, as measured by gross domestic product per capita.

In Prof. Dungan’s forecasting model, devised with two co-authors, an increase of 100,000 immigrants to Canada (chosen under the current selection model) would result in a 2.3-per-cent increase in real GDP over 10 years. But since the population would increase by 2.6 per cent over that period, GDP per capita could actually decline slightly.

However, if Canada were to double the number of economic-class migrants only, as The Globe and Mail has proposed, average entry wages for all immigrants would rise by between 5 and 6 per cent, according to a model devised by Queen’s University economist Charles Beach.

Innovation

Studies show that immigration can also foster innovation. A Conference Board of Canada study found immigrants make up 35 per cent of university research chairs in Canada, much higher than their 20 per cent share of the population.

Trade

The same study argued that immigration has a significant impact on Canadian trade links. It proposed that a 1-per-cent increase in immigration from a specific country would lead to a 0.1-per-cent increase in the value of Canadian exports, largely as a result of the international networks that immigrants bring with them. They also bring with them a desire for goods from their home markets, which would contribute to a 0.2-per-cent rise in the value of imports, and a more interesting and varied market for all consumers.

Quality of life

A diverse population is also believed to make a community more attractive to creative, talented people. As a paper written for the Martin Prosperity Institute argues, cities such as Toronto have benefited from attracting people from around the world, particularly as the collision of their skills, abilities and perspectives can lead to improvements in productivity.

To find out what immigration looks like in your community, see an interactive look at solutions to Canada's immigration problem and share your own story click here.

Kenney amends controversial refugee bill

By Louise Elliott, CBC News 

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is bending to opposition pressure and amending his controversial refugee omnibus bill, C-31.

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, seen here earlier this month on Parliament Hill, is amending his omnibus immigration legislation in response to criticism about some of its measures.(Adrian Wyld/Canadian Press)

The amendment will introduce a 14-day and six-month review of the detention of so-called "mass arrivals" of refugees.

"People have raised concerns about this. We've studied the issue closely as a result of which the government has decided to amend the bill to allow for an initial detention review at 14 days initially, and then subsequently at six months," Kenney told reporters Wednesday.

The bill originally stipulated a judicial review would only be necessary after those refugee claimants designated as "mass arrivals" by the minister had been in detention for one year.

Kenney also introduced another amendment to clarify that the government would not have the power to revoke the permanent residency of successful refugee claimants if conditions improve in their countries of origin, unless it was found they obtained their status through fraudulent means.

'Mass arrivals' not clearly defined in bill

"The government has no intention of removing permanent residency from bona fide refugees if things have changed in their countries of origin," he said.

Even with the amendments Kenney announced Wednesday, the bill still gives the immigration minister sole authority to decide which groups of refugee claimants are "mass arrivals" — a term which is not clearly defined in the bill.

'The minor concessions that the minister has made don't alter my opinion one iota and don't alter the likelihood of major constitutional challenges'—Refugee lawyer Lorne Waldman

The measure was sparked by the arrival of two boatloads of Tamil migrants off the coast of Vancouver in recent years. The bill would allow for those cases to be designated retroactively as "mass arrivals."

Several legal experts have argued that provision would almost certainly generate costly court challenges because it is inconsistent with the UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the Charter of Rights and Supreme court precedents.

Refugee law professor Peter Showler was among the legal experts who have warned it's not yet clear how much the government has backed down.

While changing the controversial clause was "excellent news," Showler said, he noted that the first review at the 14-day mark won't give migrants enough time to prove their identities.

'Outrageously fast' timelines criticized

He said that several other aspects of the bill remain too punitive.

"We need far more amendments," he said. "Canadians should understand that this bill really dismantles Canada's refugee system."

Showler said the government needs to clarify what exactly would prompt it to release those claimants at the 14-day mark or the six-month mark.

"We need to see more information about that."

He also called the current timelines "outrageously fast" and said they would hamper the ability to make fair decisions.

"The minister has given no hint he's willing to give ground on any of those [timelines]," he said.

'Minor concessions'

Refugee lawyer Lorne Waldman dismissed Kenney's changes as "cosmetic" and said they do nothing to alter the "insidious" nature of the bill overall.

Who is a refugee?

Click to see the formal definition as laid out in 1951 UN convention.

"The minor concessions that the minister has made don't alter my opinion one iota and don't alter the likelihood of major constitutional challenges," he said.

Waldman, who has represented several claimants from the groups of Tamils that arrived by boat in B.C., said other aspects of the bill are unconstitutional and will do irreparable psychological damage to people who are legitimate refugees.

Particularly harsh, he said, is the fact that claimants who are granted refugee status would nevertheless be barred from reuniting with their families for five years. They would also be denied permanent residency status during that time.

The bill also would allow the minister to designate particular countries as "safe," meaning refugee claims from those countries would be fast-tracked without right of appeal.

C-31 'flawed and unconstitutional': NDP

Earlier Wednesday the NDP's immigration critic, Jinny Sims, signalled her party won't support the bill after a parade of legal experts, human rights advocates and refugees themselves warned the bill will violate domestic and international laws.

"Today New Democrats are calling on Conservatives to abandon this legislation and go back to the drawing board," she said.

"We believe that the ultimate result of this bill will be to hurt legitimate refugees. Witness after witness has told the committee that C-31 is fundamentally flawed and unconstitutional."

When asked if her party would support the bill if the detention provision was dialed back, along with clarification about when people could be deported, Sims said [those measures] "would not go far enough to address the fundamental flaws in this bill."

Nearly 500 Tamil migrants arrived in B.C. aboard the MV Sun Sea in August 2010.(Department of National Defence)

Sims promised to give the government's amendments close consideration in line-by-line study today and tomorrow.

Sims said the bill's many "draconian" measures would only serve to punish the victims while not improving safety.

Michael Bossin, a refugee lawyer and representative of Amnesty International, argued the detention provision would create a legal quagmire.

He argued that if the provisions are ultimately thrown out by the courts there would have to be a huge retroactive clean-up of cases.

"Will that create a huge expensive mess far worse than the one we are in now?" he asked. "Yes you can count on it."

Today, a Commons committee that has been reviewing the bill will move to a clause-by-clause study. That study will be completed Thursday and followed by a vote on the amendments.

In a majority, the government does not require opposition support to pass the bill.

Bill C-31 replaces a former law, the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which received opposition approval in the last minority parliament but has not yet been implemented.