English 
Français 
Español 
العربية 
Português 
Русский There’s an Inevitable Headwind Against Entrepreneurship in Canada
As Canada’s population continues to age, immigration will play an increasingly important role in the creation of new businesses but it won’t be the only solution.
A recent study released by the Fraser Institute suggests that the demographic shift towards an older population is already dragging down the number of new businesses starting in Canada.
According to Jason Clemens, executive vice-president of the Fraser Institute and co-author of the report, “There’s an inevitable headwind against entrepreneurship, which is this demographic change.”
The report, based on data from Statistics Canada, found that in 2004 there were 17.9 new firms for every 100 existing businesses. By 2012, that number had dropped to 15. This decline correlates with a 15 percent increase in the proportion of Canadians over age 65.
According to Statscan, in 2009 there were 120 children for every 100 seniors in Canada. The federal statistics agency forecasts that those numbers will become equal sometime between this year and 2021.
The demographic shift, which is trending to as few as 58 children for every 100 seniors by 2036, will have a major impact on the Canadian economy.
While the decline in the number of new businesses will mean less job creation in the short-term, Mr. Clemens says that if nothing is done about the demographic shift, Canada’s future could be at risk. He warns that with a shrinking proportion of the population paying taxes, provinces will struggle to cover growing healthcare costs while also continuing to fund other services.
According to Michael Bloom, vice-president of Industry and Business Strategy at the Conference Board of Canada, Immigration will also play an increasingly prominent role.
“In order for us to be able to project economic growth at a desirable level, in the long-term, we must raise immigration to one percent annual inflow by 2025 to 2030,” Mr. Bloom says.
Canada currently accepts around 250,000 immigrants a year, an annual inflow of around 0.7 per cent of the population.
Immigration is not only important to maintaining economic growth, it’s also important to maintaining entrepreneurship rates.
Immigrants are 1.6 times more likely to start businesses than native-born Canadians according to a report released by the Business Development Bank of Canada in the fall.
Federal programs that were intended to encourage entrepreneurs and investors to immigrate to Canada stopped accepting applications in 2012 and were scrapped in June 2014. The federal government said the programs were ineffective at bringing new money into Canada and creating new businesses.
A new startup visa program, launched as a pilot project and intended to lure high-tech entrepreneurs to Canada, has only issued a handful of visas in two years.
Canada needs to dramatically increase the number of young immigrants it accepts, he says, and even if it is mathematically possible, there would be practical challenges.
For Mr. Clemens, other policies need to change to encourage entrepreneurship and investment by both new and native-born Canadians. One policy change he’d like to see is the scrapping of the capital gains tax.
“It’s low cost,” he says. “The federal government doesn’t collect all that much revenue from the capital gains tax.”
Attorney Colin Singer Commentary
The Conservative government has a stated distaste for business immigrants. Despite having a dubious history in this area, it recently launched an unsuccessful venture capital investor pilot project. The Citizenship and Immigration Ministry under former Minister Jason Kenney allowed more than 15,000 wealthy investor applications to languish in an unmanaged backlog, some dating back to 2008, before extinguishing their applications in 2014. The record is clear that the current government has adopted a series of policies that have significantly reduced the flow of business immigration to Canada.
Read more:
https://www.immigration.ca/canada-new-immigrant-investor-venture-capital-program-fail/
- Published in May
The Expression of Interest
The Expression of Interest – The Process of Submission by Other Means
Some foreign nationals might not be able to submit an expression of interest via the electronic system available (specified in subsection 3 above). This would typically be because they suffer from a physical or a mental disability.
In this scenario, the authorities enable these individuals to submit their expressions of interest by other means made available by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for that purpose. This could include submission of expressions of interest via paper forms.
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
- Published in E-Application
The Electronic System
The parties concerned would be using an electronic system called the Express Entry System, made available by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the:
- Foreign national to serve the purpose specified in subsection 10.1 (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) and,
- The Minister to serve the purpose specified in subsection 10.2 (3) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)
This electronic system will be useful for the authorities to:
- Determine:
- Whether they should issue an invitation to the foreign national based on the information provided in the expression of interest that the individuals submitted to the Minister
- The rank of the foreign national relative to that of other eligible foreign nationals and,
- Whether the foreign national occupies the rank required for the authorities to issue an invitation AND,
- Automatically transfer the information provided by the foreign national in their expression of interest to the electronic Application for Permanent Residence (e-APR) made by the foreign national under section 12.01 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)
- This is especially so if the authorities issue an invitation to the foreign national.
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
- Published in E-Application
The Classes of Foreign Nationals
The Classes of Foreign Nationals
Subsection 10.1 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) applies to:
- The federal skilled worker class referred to in subsection 75 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)
- The Canadian experience class referred to in subsection 87.1 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR)
- The federal skilled trades class referred to in subsection 87.2 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) and,
- The members of the provincial nominee class referred to in subsection 87 (2) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR), nominated by the government of one of the following provinces under its provincial nominee program express entry stream:
- Alberta
- British Columbia
- Manitoba
- New Brunswick
- Newfoundland and Labrador
- Nova Scotia
- Northwest Territories
- Ontario
- Prince Edward Island
- Saskatchewan and,
- Yukon
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
- Published in E-Application
The Definitions
The definitions given below are applicable to these Ministerial Instructions.
English Term | French Term | Definition |
Accompanying spouse or common-law partner | Époux ou conjoint de fait accompagnant l’étranger | Denotes the foreign national’s spouse or common-law partner who is:
|
Act | Loi | Denotes the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) |
Canadian citizen | Citoyen Canadien | Shares the same meaning as specified in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Canadian educational credential | Diplôme Candien | Shares the same meaning as specified in subsection 73 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Canadian Language Benchmarks | Canadian Language Benchmarks | Shares the same meaning as specified in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Common-law partner | Conjoint de fait | Shares the same meaning as specified in subsection 1 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Invitation | Invitation | Denotes the invitation to make an application for permanent residence issued by the Minister under subsection 10.1 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) |
Language skill area | Habileté langagière | Shares the same meaning as specified in subsection 73 (1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
National Occupational Classification (NOC) | Classification nationale des professions | Shares the same meaning as specified in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Official language | Langue officielle | Denotes an official language of Canada |
Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens | Niveaux de compétence linguistique canadiens | Shares the same meaning as specified in section 2 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Qualifying offer of arranged employment | Offre d’emploi réservé admissible | Denotes:
|
Regulations | Règlement | Denotes the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations (IRPR) |
Source: Citizenship and Immigration
- Published in E-Application
C-51: Anti-Terror bill to be Tweaked as Committee Begins Clause-by-Clause Review
After spending much of last week hearing expert witnesses expound on the pros and cons of the government’s proposed new anti-terror laws, the House public safety committee began clause-by-clause review of the bill on Thursday.
The government has already signalled that it intends to have Conservative MPs propose three changes, the most significant of which is removing the word ‘lawful’ from the section exempting protests from the new measures. The New Democrats and Green Party have prepared their own motions, and Green Party Elizabeth May plans to bring forward 60 potential tweaks.
Meanwhile, Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien will discuss “terrorist financing in Canada and abroad” with Finance committee members, who will also hear from various lawyers, academics and, by video conference from Maryland, Anti-Money Laundering Association senior fellow Amit Kumar.
Elsewhere on the committee front:
- Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander takes questions on his bid to crack down on early and forced marriage, as well as polygamy amongst citizenship applicants, permanent residents and refugee claimants.
- Veterans members get briefed on “upcoming commemoration initiatives.”
- The Procedure and House Affairs committee goes behind closed doors to discuss their ongoing review of the MPs’ conflict of interest code.
Source: CBC News
- Published in April
Song v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015-02-04 | 2015 FC 141 | IMM-4550-13
Song v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Principles Established
- An applicant for Canadian Experience class permanent residency cannot be rejected merely because his employment experience does not match the exact wording of the required employment duties listed in the National Occupation Classification [NOC].
- Such an application also cannot be rejected merely because the applicant’s previous employment experience failed to include one of the duties listed under the NOC.
Facts
Song applied for judicial review of the decision of a visa officer to reject his application for permanent residency as a member of the Canadian Experience Class. He had applied under the National Occupation Classification of Retail and Wholesale Trade Manager.
The officer rejected Song’s application because he did not meet the skilled work experience requirement. Song had provided a letter outlining his duties as storefront manager at a Toronto pharmacy but the visa officer argued that the duties listed in the letter did not specifically match the duties required under the NOC. Furthermore, the officer argued that Song’s letter had failed to mention that Song had studied competitors’ sales operations, which is one of the requirements duties listed under the NOC.
Decision
The Federal Court found the officer’s decision to have been unreasonable for two reasons. Firstly, the Court opined that an applicant’s written employment experience does not have to match the exact wording of the duties listed under the NOC in order to meet the experience requirement. Secondly, the Court opined that if an applicant’s written employment experience does not include one of the required duties, his application should not automatically be disqualified.
Song’s work experience was deemed by the Court to have satisfied all relevant requirements under the NOC except for the requirement concerning competitor’s sales operations.
The court thus quashed the officer’s rejection of Song’s application and returned the application for reconsideration by another officer.
- Published in February
Asoyan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015-02-18 | 2015 FC 206 | IMM-446-14
Asoyan v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Principle Established
Once an applicant indicates that she is having trouble receiving e-mails from CIC, it is CIC’s duty to ensure that the applicant receives all subsequent e-mails.
Facts
Asoyan applied for judicial review of CIC’s decision to reject her application for permanent residency.
During her application, Asoyan provided CIC with an e-mail address to be used for all communications regarding her application.
In February 2013, CIC sent Asoyan an e-mail requiring that she provide information concerning a gap in her personal history as stated in her application. Asoyan contended that she did not receive this e-mail. CIC never followed up to ensure that Asoyan received the information request. CIC was already aware of Asoyan’s difficulty receiving e-mails, as Asoyan had previously brought it to CIC’s attention that she never received an Acknowledgement of Receipt e-mail concerning her initial application.
Assoyan’s application was eventually rejected due to her failure to provide the information requested in the February e-mail.
Decision
The Federal Court opined that once the Asoyan had made it clear that she was not receiving CIC’s e-mails, it was CIC’s responsibility to ensure that she received all information relevant to her application. Thus, in not making any effort to ensure that Asoyan received the information request in February 2013, CIC had breached its duty of procedural fairness. The application for judicial review was allowed.
- Published in February
Ijaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
2015-01-16 | 2015 FC 67 | IMM-4516-13
Ijaz v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration)
Principle Established
In the context of education received in a foreign country, there is ambiguity in the IRP regulations concerning whether educational qualification points should be awarded based on equivalent years of education or equivalent completed degrees.
Facts
Ijaz applied for judicial review of a CIC officer’s rejection of her application for permanent residency as a Federal Skilled Worker.
Ijaz argued that she was erroneously awarded 5 educational qualification points when she was actually entitled to 19 points. If Ijaz had been awarded 19 points, her application would have succeeded.
Ijaz submitted evidence that she had completed secondary school, a two-year science degree and a two-year accounting degree in Pakistan. Upon evaluation, it was determined that Ijaz’s educational experience constituted the equivalent of a Canadian high school diploma, two years of Canadian undergraduate schooling and two years of Canadian professional schooling.
Ijaz argued that she should have been awarded points for her four years of post-secondary schooling while CIC argued that educational qualification points are only provided for foreign educational experience that constitutes the equivalent of a completed degree in Canada. Thus, given that Ijaz had not been assessed as having completed the equivalent of a Canadian bachelor or professional degree, she only received points for her equivalent high school diploma.
Decision
The Federal Court applied the standard of reasonableness to the case as the matter involved a CIC officer interpreting a statute with which he had substantial experience. The Court then opined that both Ijaz and the CIC’s arguments were reasonable interpretations of the IRP Regulations. The Court thus deferred to the CIC’s rejection of the application and submitted a certified question on the legislative ambiguity.
The application for judicial review was dismissed. The certified question has not yet been answered.
- Published in January
El-Husseini c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)
2015-01-29 | 2015 CF 116 | T-346-14
El-Husseini c Canada (Citoyenneté et Immigration)
Principle Established
Procedural fairness requires a citizenship judge to take sufficient measures to inform a citizenship applicant of any evidence-related problems with his application before a final decision is rendered.
Facts
El-Husseini sought judicial review of a citizenship judge’s decision to reject his citizenship application.
After an interview with a citizenship judge, El-Husseini’s application was rejected because he was unable to prove that he had resided in Canada prior to January 2008. El-Husseini contended that he had brought evidence to the interview proving his presence in Canada prior to January 2008, but had never been asked to furnish it. The citizenship judge contended, on the other hand, that El-Husseini had been unable to provide the evidence when asked.
Decision
In light of conflicting affidavits, the Federal Court opined that there was a miscommunication between El-Husseini and the citizenship judge concerning the evidence. In light of this miscommunication, the Court confirmed that it is a citizenship judge’s responsibility to clearly inform a citizenship applicant of any evidence-related concerns regarding his application before a final decision is rendered. Given the citizenship judge’s failure to clear up the misunderstanding regarding the evidence El-Husseini was supposed to provide, the Court found the rejection of El-Huseeini’s application to have been a breach of procedural fairness.
The application for judicial review was allowed and El-Husseini’s application was sent for re-evaluation by a new citizenship judge.
- Published in January
