Since
the early 1980s, Canada’s immigration selection policies have focussed on the
principal applicant’s highest educational achievements and language skills,
explicitly to ensure that immigrants would be suitable for employment and
economically successful once they arrived.
But
data based on the 2005 census and published by Statistics Canada show these
policies have not been successful.
Immigrants who arrived between 1987 and 2004 earned incomes that were on
average equal to only 70 percent of the incomes of Canadians. These recent immigrants have higher than
average levels of unemployment and lower labour force participation rates. They also disproportionately have incomes
below the official poverty line.
Significantly,
these recent immigrants pay income taxes that are only 54 percent of the
national average. Because of their low
incomes, they also pay less than the average in other taxes. At the same time, these immigrants are
entitled to all of Canada’s generous social programs and enjoy at no costs the
benefits of the country’s spending on infrastructure and security.
In Fiscal Transfers to Immigrants in Canada:
Responding to Critics and a Revised Estimate, my co-author Patrick Grady
and I estimated the average new recent immigrant is imposing a fiscal burden on
Canadians of about $6,000 annually as they use that much more in government
services than they pay in taxes. The
total fiscal burden in 2012 was around $20 billion for immigrants who arrived
between 1987 and 2011.
This
fiscal burden will never be repaid. The 2005
employment income of the sons of second generation visible-minority immigrants (where one or both parents were born abroad),
was only two thirds of non-immigrant Canadians.
Third and later generations will most likely have the same average
incomes as other Canadians and thus will never pay enough taxes to compensate for
the fiscal shortfall recorded by their parents.
Reforms
of the present immigrant selection policies are needed to prevent a growing
future fiscal burden. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has begun this
process.
One
of the most important changes is giving preference to applicants who have a
pre-arranged employment contract for work in Canada. Grady and I recommended this change because
it would relieve civil servants of the responsibility of selecting immigrants
on the basis of information that by its very nature is imperfect and would allow
employers to make the initial decision as to which applicants have the needed
occupational and language skills to earn their pay and become economically
successful Canadians.
Limited
experience with this pre-arranged job-offer criterion, which provincial
governments have also embraced enthusiastically, shows much promise. It is time to use job-offers as the main criterion
for the admission of all skilled immigrants, who may be accompanied by their
immediate family members.
The
successful operation of this system will require a quick approval process and
continued government involvement in its administration and the screening of
immigrants to protect public security and health. Adequate resources must be devoted to monitor
the income tax returns of immigrants to make sure they are indeed paid the
amount promised in the employment contract and that they have not become
unemployed for prolonged periods.
The
avoidance of the fiscal burden also requires that the immigrants’ pre-arranged
contract offers pay equal to at least the average income of Canadians. This condition is needed to prevent a flood
of low skilled immigrants with little earnings capacity who would not pay
enough taxes to cover the cost of the public social programs they are entitled
to.
The
proposed policy would not only stop the growth of the fiscal burden but would solve
two problems associated with the present system. It would make the number of immigrants
responsive to business cycle conditions and would determine how many immigrants
were allowed to enter Canada annually.
This
number would no longer be the outcome of arbitrary decisions driven by
politicians, bureaucrats and special interest groups but would be determined by
labour market conditions and thus better serve the needs of the economy and all
Canadians.
No comments:
Post a Comment