Response and further discussion

Abstract

The various commentaries by Jindra Divis, Dan Hiebert, Robyn Iredale, Samuel Laryea, and Tim Owen, and also Richard Wanner's synthesis, include a number of valuable observations that could permit a more accurate estimate of the quantitative significance of the underutilization of immigrant skills in Canada than I had presented in my paper. In addition, comments from Dan Hiebert and Richard Wanner helped correct calculations presented in an earlier draft of the paper. I am therefore grateful for these contributions, and I also appreciate the generously collegial tone in which criticisms were noted. Having the opportunity to continue the discussion briefly, I would like to add comments on where I think the issue stands at the moment. It is my reading of the discussion, and Wanner's as well, that the commentators were supportive of the general approach and conclusions of the paper. Despite various criticisms and suggestions, they agreed that immigrant skill underuti l izat ion--and immigrant disadvantage generally--is quantitatively substantial and of considerable economic consequence. In his summary of the comments, Wanner predicts--twice-that immigrant skill utilization will be the central immigration issue of the future in Canada and other postindustrial countries of immigration. Subsequent discussion of this issue undoubtedly will be influenced by the publication of a significant new study by the Conference Board of Canada (Bloom & Grant, Brain Gain: The Economic Benefits of Recognizing Learning and Learning Credentials in Canada, 2001,