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.

Refugee bill changes ‘strike the right balance’ on detention concerns: Jason Kenney

Tobi Cohen, Postmedia News

OTTAWA — The federal government is conceding on a number of opposition and stakeholder criticisms of proposed legislation aimed at cracking down on bogus refugee claimants — but those opposed to the bill argue it hasn’t backed down enough.

Just before a Commons committee sat down to review Bill C-31 clause-by-clause Wednesday, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney indicated the government would agree to amend provisions in the Protecting Canada’s Immigration Act that call for “irregular arrivals” who come to Canada en masse, possibly as part of human-smuggling operations, to be subject to automatic detention for up to a year without a review of their case.

Critics have argued the detention provisions, among others, are inhumane and a violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as other international treaties.

Under the amendment, those individuals would be guaranteed an initial review within 14 days and another review within six months.

“We believe this strikes the right balance,” Kenney said upon emerging from a caucus meeting.

“It ensures there will be a review of detention by the independent quasi-judicial Immigration and Refugee Board. It also ensures that we have enough time to truly identify smuggled migrants and ensure that they do not constitute a security risk.”

The government also has agreed to clarify that smuggled migrants who are deemed bona fide refugees will not face detention and it will amend certain language in the bill that some fear could have the unintended consequence of revoking a refugee’s permanent residence due to improved circumstances in their country of origin.

‘The bill concentrates power in the hands of the minister while it punishes refugees’ — NDP

“Some opposition members have raised unreasonable fear amongst refugees that the provision for cessation of protected status and revocation of (permanent residency) in bill C-31 will be applied arbitrarily and create uncertainty for bona fide refugees who have obtained (permanent residency) in Canada,” Kenney said.

“Let me be clear. It’s never been our intention to do that.”

In a bid to prevent rejected asylum claimants from “going underground” to avoid deportation pending a pre-removal risk assessment, Kenney said the government would also amend the bill to push the bar on access to such assessments back to three years as opposed to one.

NDP immigration critic Jinny Sims said she welcomes “any move by the minister to make improvements to the legislation,” but that the ones he’s outlined don’t “go far enough to address the fundamental flaws in the bill.

“The bill concentrates power in the hands of the minister while it punishes refugees and won’t address the problem of human smuggling,” she said at a news conference. She said the NDP wants the government to “abandon” the costly bill and warned it would result in numerous legal challenges and force the government to “go back to the drawing board.”

Joined by legal experts and a representative of the Roma community, which is being targeted in the legislation, Sims noted the NDP planned to put forward more than 20 amendments at committee before the process ends at midnight Thursday. Most of them, however, are likely to be rejected by the committee, which is dominated by Tories.

She added she’d ultimately like the government to maintain its commitment to the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which was passed with much fanfare during the last Parliament after the then-minority Conservatives reached a consensus with the opposition. The new bill essentially reintroduces elements that were left out in a bid to get it passed and critics have slammed the Tories for using their majority muscle to go back on their word.

Kenney is keen on getting his omnibus bill passed before June 27 when the predecessor legislation is set to take effect. He said the government isn’t “prepared operationally” to implement the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, which would be rendered null and void once the new bill is passed.

Among other things, the omnibus bill seeks to quickly deport “bogus” refugee claimants from countries deemed “safe” within 45 days instead of the 1,000 days it currently takes or the 171 days it would take under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act.

The government has argued the move would assist in dealing with a huge spike in European claims, the bulk of them by Hungary’s Roma population. Last year, the number of claims from Hungary nearly doubled to 4,409 — though officials say most were withdrawn, abandoned or rejected.

Claimants from safe countries would be barred from appealing a negative decision to the new Refugee Appeal Division and the bill would eliminate a provision that called for a committee of experts to decide which countries would be placed on the safe list. Under the new bill, that decision would rest with the minister.

According to the bill, those who entered Canada by way of illegal smugglers also would be barred from seeking permanent residency or sponsoring a loved one for five years and certain visa holders would be required to turn over biometric data.

Postmedia News

Amendments to the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act

Map showing origin countries of refugees /asylum seekers (= people fleeing abroad) in 2007 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

OTTAWA, ONTARIO, May 09, 2012 (MARKETWIRE via COMTEX) -- Minister of Citizenship, Immigration, and Multiculturalism Jason Kenney today announced that the Government is proposing amendments to Bill C-31, the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act.

"Over the past few weeks, I've listened to parliamentarians and witnesses," said Minister Kenney. "We have always said that we were open to amendments that make Bill C-31 stronger and help us to fight human smuggling and to protect Canada's immigration system. These amendments do just that, and make for a stronger bill."

For example, some critics feared that the measures originally proposed in Bill C-31 with respect to the cessation of permanent residence status might be used in a way never intended by the Government. Others speculated that the Government would seek to remove permanent residence status from refugees who have become well-established in Canada, but whose rationale for refugee status ceases to exist due to improved conditions in their country of origin. The Government is introducing an amendment to clarify this section and to explicitly limit the application of this section of the legislation.

The proposed amendment would make it clear that where the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB) determines that an individual's protected person status has ceased to exist solely due to a change in country conditions, that individual would not automatically lose permanent resident status. This was the original purpose of the provision in the bill, and the new language should make that purpose clearer.

Under the Balanced Refugee Reform Act, individuals with a final negative decision from the IRB were barred from applying for a pre-removal risk assessment (PRRA) for 12 months. This is because a PRRA is duplicative of the IRB decision, and a core purpose of the bill was to reduce redundancy and unnecessary delays in the removal process for failed asylum seekers.

The government is proposing to amend this provision so that the 12-month bar will apply as soon as Bill C-31 receives Royal Assent. There is no reason to delay the application of this provision, and the proposed amendment ensures there will be no such delay. The effect of this proposed amendment will be that individuals who received a negative decision from the IRB, or abandoned or withdrew their refugee claim, or received a negative PRRA decision within the 12 months prior to the date of Royal Assent would be barred from applying for a PRRA until 12 months after that decision.

The proposed amendment would also increase the temporal bar from 12 to 36 months for those from designated countries of origin who have received a previous negative decision from the IRB, abandoned or withdrew their refugee claim, or received a negative PRRA decision. This change will discourage failed asylum seekers from going underground and evading removal for 12 months, and recognises that country conditions and the threat of real persecution in a presumptively safe country are not likely to change in the course of 36 months. There is, however, a provision in the Balanced Refugee Reform Act that would allow the Minister to make exceptions to the bar on PRRA to quickly respond to sudden changes in country conditions.

Under the Protecting Canada's Immigration System Act, the Government had initially proposed mandatory detention without review for up to 12 months for those who arrive as part of a designated irregular arrival. This would allow for the determination of identity, admissibility, or any other investigations to take place before members or irregular mass arrivals are released into the community. Persons would, however, be released from detention before 12 months, if they are found to be genuine refugees.

Opposition members have asked for amendments to this detention review schedule, so that these individuals would receive a review of their detention much sooner than initially proposed. They have, for example, suggested that a first detention review should occur within 14 days of detention, with subsequent reviews every 30 days. Other witnesses and critics of this provision of Bill C-31 have suggested other time periods, including an initial review shortly after detention, followed by subsequent reviews at least every 6 months.

After listening to parliamentarians, the Government is proposing a compromise, which would see a first detention review within 14 days and subsequent reviews after every 180 days. As before, a person would be released before this time, upon being found to be a genuine refugee. As an additional safeguard, the government will also propose an amendment to allow the Minister of Public Safety, on his own initiative and at any time, to release a detained individual when grounds for detention no longer exist.

"I believe that these amendments show that the Government is open to reasonable suggestions that improve our Bills," said Minister Kenney. "We have listened to parliamentarians on Bill C-31 and, as a result, we have a stronger bill that will continue to protect genuine refugees, while ensuring that bogus asylum seekers are detained, processed, and swiftly removed, and sending the message to human smugglers that targeting Canada will no longer pay."

Follow us on Twitter at www.twitter.com/CitImmCanada

Photos of Minister Kenney available at: www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/photos/high-res/index.asp .

Building a stronger Canada: Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) strengthens Canada's economic, social and cultural prosperity, helping ensure Canadian safety and security while managing one of the largest and most generous immigration programs in the world.

        
        Contacts:
        Ana Curic
        Minister's Office
        Citizenship and Immigration Canada
        613-954-1064
        
        Media Relations
        Communications Branch
        Citizenship and Immigration Canada
        613-952-1650
        CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.ca
        
        
        

SOURCE: Citizenship and Immigration Canada