In its release of 2001 Census data last month, Statistics Canada reported a growing reliance on immigration as a source of skills and knowledge. The covering statement goes on to note recent immigrants represent 70 per cent of total labour force growth over the past decade and could account for virtually all labour force growth by 2011. The implied message for Canadians is clear: without significant immigration, Canada’s economy cannot grow. (See the March 10 issue of Canadian HR Reporter or click on the "Related Articles" link below.)
This begs the question of whether Canadians need or want a larger population.
Canada has benefited from immigration in many ways over the years, ranging from the populating of the West in the early part of the century to the arrival of new human capital and the enrichment of our society through diversity in more recent decades. As well, we have been able to meet humanitarian goals by accepting refugees fleeing persecution. However, claims that Canada’s economic well-being depends on continued population growth, or that we are facing a massive skills shortage that we cannot meet without large-scale immigration, are simply not warranted by the facts.
There is no question that women all over the world are having fewer babies and population growth is slowing down and will eventually cease, barring an unlikely reversal of this trend. StatsCan projections show that without any net immigration or change in the fertility rate, the Canadian population will begin to fall below current levels in the late 2020s — but not until then.
The fact that Canadians are living longer, when combined with the low fertility rate, also means that we will have a greater proportion of retired persons per worker than at present. This need not be a problem, however, as other countries, such as Sweden, which have populations already as old as ours will be several decades from now, have been able to cope with such a development through a more rational use of the workforce, including better training and education, more use of women and more provisions for older people to continue working if they choose to do so.
David Foot of the University of Toronto pointed out Canada shouldn’t panic and raise its immigration levels since the problem of aging boomers is at least a decade away. Back in 1996, Foot and co-author Daniel Stoffman noted in their demographic bestseller, Boom, Bust and Echo, that as the number of Canadian-born people entering the labour market in the first decade of the 21st century would increase because of the echo generation (children of baby boomers), Canada would have to consider curtailing immigration. In their words, “it does not make sense to bring in a flood of 20-year-old immigrants to compete for scarce jobs just when large numbers of Canadian-born 20-year-olds are entering the job market. Doing so would be unfair both to immigrants and to resident Canadians.”
There is considerable evidence, therefore, that Canada is well placed to deal with an increasing percentage of retirees, providing we have a well-qualified workforce, make good use of it, and have normal increases in productivity.
The question of the degree to which labour market requirements should be met from the existing workforce rather than through immigration involves a number of considerations.
Many skilled immigrants who were encouraged to come here in the expectation that their credentials and experience would be fully valued by Canadian employers have been disappointed. Very often their professional experience overseas is given little weight and their training difficult to evaluate. They may also face employment problems due to language barriers or lack of familiarity with Canadian culture. The certification required to practice their profession poses a major hurdle for many, and striking a reasonable balance between responding to shortages on the one hand, and flooding the market with an over-supply of newcomers in a particular field on the other, is not an easy task.
An example of such difficulties can be seen in the year 2000 when more than 15,000 newcomers declared engineering as their intended occupation in Canada — about 6.6 per cent of all landed immigrants in that year. The number of engineers entering Canada that year was, in the event, 50 per cent higher than the number of engineering degrees granted by Canadian universities, with foreign-born then comprising almost half of those holding engineering degrees in Canada.
This massive influx into Canada has almost certainly been a major contributing factor in the failure of Canadian salaries in the engineering field to keep pace with those in the United States in the past decade. It is also probably a major reason why many of our best engineering graduates accept employment offers from American companies rather than stay in Canada.
By taking in such large numbers of engineers as immigrants, Canada is, therefore, helping to create an ongoing brain drain which will require the continued substitution of Canadian-born by immigrant engineers.
While Canada should continue to be a friendly destination for immigrants, we must ensure that the numbers and qualifications of those who come in fact serve the best interests of the country. As well, we must see to it that they are selected in a manner that provides them with reasonable prospects of employment in the fields for which they are qualified. The fact that significant numbers of skilled immigrants are presently having difficulty finding suitable jobs not only suggests that many of the major gaps in the workforce which they came to fill do not in fact exist, but may also discourage well-qualified immigrants from coming here in the future.
Martin Collacott is a senior fellow with The Fraser Institute (www.fraserinstitute.ca).
This begs the question of whether Canadians need or want a larger population.
Canada has benefited from immigration in many ways over the years, ranging from the populating of the West in the early part of the century to the arrival of new human capital and the enrichment of our society through diversity in more recent decades. As well, we have been able to meet humanitarian goals by accepting refugees fleeing persecution. However, claims that Canada’s economic well-being depends on continued population growth, or that we are facing a massive skills shortage that we cannot meet without large-scale immigration, are simply not warranted by the facts.
There is no question that women all over the world are having fewer babies and population growth is slowing down and will eventually cease, barring an unlikely reversal of this trend. StatsCan projections show that without any net immigration or change in the fertility rate, the Canadian population will begin to fall below current levels in the late 2020s — but not until then.
The fact that Canadians are living longer, when combined with the low fertility rate, also means that we will have a greater proportion of retired persons per worker than at present. This need not be a problem, however, as other countries, such as Sweden, which have populations already as old as ours will be several decades from now, have been able to cope with such a development through a more rational use of the workforce, including better training and education, more use of women and more provisions for older people to continue working if they choose to do so.
David Foot of the University of Toronto pointed out Canada shouldn’t panic and raise its immigration levels since the problem of aging boomers is at least a decade away. Back in 1996, Foot and co-author Daniel Stoffman noted in their demographic bestseller, Boom, Bust and Echo, that as the number of Canadian-born people entering the labour market in the first decade of the 21st century would increase because of the echo generation (children of baby boomers), Canada would have to consider curtailing immigration. In their words, “it does not make sense to bring in a flood of 20-year-old immigrants to compete for scarce jobs just when large numbers of Canadian-born 20-year-olds are entering the job market. Doing so would be unfair both to immigrants and to resident Canadians.”
There is considerable evidence, therefore, that Canada is well placed to deal with an increasing percentage of retirees, providing we have a well-qualified workforce, make good use of it, and have normal increases in productivity.
The question of the degree to which labour market requirements should be met from the existing workforce rather than through immigration involves a number of considerations.
Many skilled immigrants who were encouraged to come here in the expectation that their credentials and experience would be fully valued by Canadian employers have been disappointed. Very often their professional experience overseas is given little weight and their training difficult to evaluate. They may also face employment problems due to language barriers or lack of familiarity with Canadian culture. The certification required to practice their profession poses a major hurdle for many, and striking a reasonable balance between responding to shortages on the one hand, and flooding the market with an over-supply of newcomers in a particular field on the other, is not an easy task.
An example of such difficulties can be seen in the year 2000 when more than 15,000 newcomers declared engineering as their intended occupation in Canada — about 6.6 per cent of all landed immigrants in that year. The number of engineers entering Canada that year was, in the event, 50 per cent higher than the number of engineering degrees granted by Canadian universities, with foreign-born then comprising almost half of those holding engineering degrees in Canada.
This massive influx into Canada has almost certainly been a major contributing factor in the failure of Canadian salaries in the engineering field to keep pace with those in the United States in the past decade. It is also probably a major reason why many of our best engineering graduates accept employment offers from American companies rather than stay in Canada.
By taking in such large numbers of engineers as immigrants, Canada is, therefore, helping to create an ongoing brain drain which will require the continued substitution of Canadian-born by immigrant engineers.
While Canada should continue to be a friendly destination for immigrants, we must ensure that the numbers and qualifications of those who come in fact serve the best interests of the country. As well, we must see to it that they are selected in a manner that provides them with reasonable prospects of employment in the fields for which they are qualified. The fact that significant numbers of skilled immigrants are presently having difficulty finding suitable jobs not only suggests that many of the major gaps in the workforce which they came to fill do not in fact exist, but may also discourage well-qualified immigrants from coming here in the future.
Martin Collacott is a senior fellow with The Fraser Institute (www.fraserinstitute.ca).
