This initiative, interpreted by some domestic media and numerous immigration agencies as "closing the door to wealthy foreigners immigrating to Canada," is merely a grandiose price hike for investment immigration—an initiative that is part of the annual Economic Action Plan (EAP). This itself indicates that the fundamental starting point of this policy adjustment is to calculate economic benefits.
According to convention, when the Canadian federal Ministry of Finance submits the "2014 Economic Action Plan (EAP, which is essentially the annual budget)" to the House of Commons, other federal departments typically bundle other controversial proposals as attachments to such significant bills. The purpose is either to "ride along" to avoid rejection when submitted individually or to deliberately "seek rejection" to automatically trigger new legislative elections. The current federal Conservative government under Harper is a majority government, and for significant bills concerning the government's annual financial policies like the EAP, the ruling party usually requires all its members to vote in favor, making "seeking rejection" nearly impossible. Therefore, this year's "bundled" attachments can only be of the "ride along" variety.
Among the various "ride along" attachments, the most eye-catching is the proposal from the federal Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration: to seek to terminate the Federal Investor Immigration (IIP) and Federal Entrepreneur Immigration (EN) economic immigration programs within the year.
Even the surface reasons are not devoid of economic factors: Canadian Federal Immigration Minister Chris Alexander stated that investment immigrants pay less in taxes compared to other categories of immigrants, and many of them neither work nor create job opportunities, contributing insufficiently to the Canadian economy. Of course, friends familiar with the history of adjustments to Canadian federal immigration policies will find that such rhetoric has been used similarly when adjusting any category of immigration.
More importantly, and more "economically," the reasons are to raise the thresholds and increase prices.
In fact, since the Harper government took office, there have been two immigration ministers (the current Alexander and former Kenney), but the policy has remained consistent: continuously raising the "price threshold" for immigration to Canada.
The first step was to tighten the originally "affordable and high-quality" skilled immigration policy.
At the end of the last century and the beginning of this century, federal skilled immigration was the primary category for immigrants from various countries to Canada. This category had high personal requirements for applicants but was almost "zero threshold" for funds. Before February 27, 2008, there were over 300 categories of federal skilled immigration with no quota restrictions, and language and education only required notarization without the need for specialized qualification certification. In that year, the Harper government significantly reduced the skilled immigration categories to 38, causing many applicants to lose their eligibility; over the next three years, the Harper government successively introduced restrictions such as educational certification, language qualification certification, total and single category annual quota limits, and tightened them year by year; on June 28, 2012, Bill C-38 was passed, freezing federal skilled immigration applications, and nearly 280,000 long-standing cases were all "reset to zero"; on May 4, 2013, federal skilled immigration applications reopened, but not only were various qualification certification conditions further tightened, but the admission categories were also reduced to 24.
Although the federal government and the immigration department provided various explanations for the above measures, as many analysts pointed out at the time, the result of this approach was only one: it made it impossible for more people intending to immigrate to Canada to achieve skilled immigration, forcing them to squeeze into the "wealthy can immigrate" economic immigration "luxury car." From this perspective, the current situation of "immigrating to Canada is only for the wealthy" is not caused by anyone else but the Harper government itself.
The second step was to raise the prices for the coveted investment immigration.
With the doors to skilled immigration nearly closed, investment immigration suddenly became highly sought after, and the opportunity for a price increase arose: in 2010, Kenney announced a "price adjustment" against the backdrop of a disrupted balance between supply and demand for investment immigration, raising the original investment threshold from CAD 400,000, which was locked in for five years without interest, to CAD 800,000. The immigration department and even the federal government continued to hint after the "price adjustment" that even so, compared to other immigration countries, Canada's investment immigration was still "undervalued" and should be doubled again, even suggesting that the "no interest and no repayment" could be changed to neither interest nor repayment. However, this kind of "trial balloon" received a poor response, as the Harper government was a minority government that could collapse at any time, and all other opposition parties opposed it, forcing the Harper government to temporarily back down.
Now, after three legislative elections, the Harper government has become a majority government, naturally with fewer scruples. Kenney and Alexander have recently hinted multiple times, accusing investment immigrants of "contributing little" and "not integrating enough," stating that "we cannot continue to undervalue." Therefore, it is no secret that there will be significant adjustments to economic immigration policies in Canada, and that there will be a "price adjustment," which many people have already anticipated along with the EAP "ride along".
So, how will this "price" be adjusted?
At the same time as the release of the EAP and the immigration policy adjustment proposal, the federal Ministry of Finance stated that after the abolition of the investment immigration and entrepreneur immigration categories, it would introduce a "high-risk investment project for immigrants" and establish a "business talent introduction program based on applicant capabilities." Subsequently, Kenney, who had already been reassigned and should not be involved in this matter, half-heartedly revealed the true nature of these two new economic immigration projects at a press conference: they are called "Investment Fund Immigration" and "Entrepreneur Immigration." Although Kenney did not provide further explanation, it is not difficult to see that the "Investment Fund Immigration" is merely a rebranded IIP, while the "Entrepreneur Immigration" is naturally the EN with a new "disguise." The purpose of this "renaming" is to raise prices; the so-called "Investment Fund" will not only have a higher investment amount but also a longer lock-in period.
Originally, the investment that was "no interest and no repayment" for skilled immigrants could generate considerable interest and investment returns for the Canadian federal government each year. Now, with the "Investment Fund" lock-in period extended (and likely for a longer duration), the interest and other returns generated will naturally increase. The greatest benefit of Canadian economic immigration compared to other immigration destinations is that once immigration is approved, there is no need for naturalization, and one can almost immediately enjoy all the social welfare and rights available to Canadian citizens (except for a few political rights such as voting and being elected). The introduction of the new policy is equivalent to making new applicants pay for an additional "social insurance," funding their future benefits in Canada.
As for the situation of "Entrepreneur Immigration," it is quite similar. Although Kenney once stated that "he hopes that the entrepreneur immigrants coming to Canada are Bill Gates rather than those opening laundries," as many economists and sociologists have criticized, the key reason for the rarity of "Bill Gates" in Canada is the adjustment of its own economic and industrial structure. The once-thriving high-tech companies and traditional manufacturing industries are declining, while the energy, raw materials development, and service industries have become the new economic pillars. And the driving force behind this transformation is none other than the federal Conservative government, based in the three prairie provinces of Alberta, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan, which are rich in oil, agricultural products, and resources. The Canadian high-tech companies that once led the industry, Nortel and BlackBerry, one has long gone bankrupt, and the other is barely surviving. With the local "Bill Gates" being hard to come by, how can we demand "Bill Gates" among entrepreneur immigrants? This policy is ultimately destined to be just a change in style to raise prices.
It is worth mentioning that Kenney, at the press conference, vaguely mentioned that "we should learn from Australia’s relevant experiences in economic immigration policies," which is quite clear: Australia not only significantly raised the investment immigration threshold in 2010 but also introduced the so-called "5 million immigration new regulations" on November 24, 2012, specifically for those willing to invest AUD 5 million (approximately CNY 32.55 million) to establish two types of "important investor visa categories"—the "temporary 188" and "permanent 888"—and provided special benefits such as "no age limit, no relevant exam scores required, and shortened residency requirements." Perhaps a tailored "Canadian version of the 888 category" is already on the horizon.
It can be imagined that under the increasingly precise "economic calculations" of the Canadian federal government, the still "surviving" "shortcut" options, such as employer immigration, foreign worker transition to immigration, and provincial nominee immigration, will also be affected, either blocked or similarly subjected to "price increases without negotiation." Even for individual projects that the federal government cannot control, such as the Quebec Provincial Investment Immigration Program, under the "rising tide" of wealth demonstration effects, it will inevitably rise in tandem with the federal government.